J. Brian Moore

A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Enalapril in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Effects on Exercise Tolerance and Arterial Distensibility

Background—Exercise intolerance is the primary symptom in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF); however, little is known regarding its mechanisms and therapy. Methods and Results—Seventy-one stable elderly (70±1 years) patients (80% women) with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure were randomized into a 12-month follow-up double-blind trial of enalapril 20 mg/d versus placebo. Assessments were peak exercise oxygen consumption; 6-minute walk test; Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire; MRI; Doppler echocardiography; and vascular ultrasound. Compliance by pill count was excellent (94%). Twenty-five patients in the enalapril group versus 34 in the placebo group completed the 12-month follow-up. During follow-up, there was no difference in the primary outcome of peak exercise oxygen consumption (enalapril, 14.5±3.2 mL/kg/min; placebo, 14.3±3.4 mL/kg/min; P=0.99), or in 6-minute walk distance, aortic distensibility (the primary mechanistic outcome), left ventricle mass, or neurohormonal profile. The effect size of enalapril on peak exercise oxygen consumption was small (0.7%; 95% CI, 4.2% to 5.6%). There was a trend toward improved Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire total score (P=0.07), a modest reduction in systolic blood pressure at peak exercise (P=0.02), and a marginal improvement in carotid arterial distensibility (P=0.04). Conclusions—In stable, older patients with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure, 12 months of enalapril did not improve exercise capacity or aortic distensibility. These data, combined with those from large clinical event trials, suggest that angiotensin inhibition does not substantially improve key long-term clinical outcomes in this group of patients. This finding contrasts sharply with observations in HF with reduced EF and highlights our incomplete understanding of this important and common disorder.

Carotid Arterial Stiffness and Its Relationship to Exercise Intolerance in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the dominant form of heart failure in the older population. The primary chronic symptom in HFpEF is severe exercise intolerance; however, its pathophysiology and therapy are not well understood. We tested the hypothesis that older patients with HFpEF have increased arterial stiffness beyond what occurs with normal aging and that this contributes to their severe exercise intolerance. Sixty-nine patients ≥60 years of age with HFpEF and 62 healthy volunteers (24 young healthy subjects ⩽30 years and 38 older healthy subjects ≥60 years old) were examined. Carotid arterial stiffness was assessed using high-resolution ultrasound, and peak exercise oxygen consumption was measured using expired gas analysis. Peak exercise oxygen consumption was severely reduced in the HFpEF patients compared with older healthy subjects (14.1±2.9 versus 19.7±3.7 mL/kg per minute; P<0.001) and in both was reduced compared with young healthy subjects (32.0±7.2 mL/kg per minute; both P<0.001). In HFpEF compared with older healthy subjects, carotid arterial distensibility was reduced (0.97±0.45 versus 1.33±0.55×10–3 mm Hg−1; P=0.008) and Young’s elastic modulus was increased (1320±884 versus 925±530 kPa; P<0.02). Carotid arterial distensibility was directly (0.28; P=0.02) and Young’s elastic modulus was inversely (–0.32; P=0.01) related to peak exercise oxygen consumption. Carotid arterial distensibility is decreased in HFpEF beyond the changes attributed to normal aging and is related to peak exercise oxygen consumption. This supports the hypothesis that increased arterial stiffness contributes to exercise intolerance in HFpEF and is a potential therapeutic target.

Endurance Exercise Training in Older Patients with Heart Failure: Results from a Randomized, Controlled, Single‐Blind Trial

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that exercise training (ET) improves exercise capacity and other clinical outcomes in older persons with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HfrEF).

Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Collegiate Football Players and Nonathletes

Abstract Collegiate American football players may be at risk for cardiovascular disease. Objective: To compare cardiovascular disease risk factors and cardiovascular structure and function parameters of football players, stratified by position, to a group of sedentary, nonathletes. Participants: Twenty-six collegiate football players and 13 nonathletes participated in this study. Methods: Blood pressures, anthropometrics, and blood chemistries were obtained and analyzed using standardized procedures. Resting echocardiography was used to evaluate cardiac morphology and function. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation was assessed using high-resolution ultrasonography. Results: The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was significantly higher amongst the linemen compared to the skill-position players (46% versus 0%, p < .05). Mildly abnormal wall thickness was noted in 20% of the football players. No significant differences in vascular function were observed between the groups. Conclusions: The increased prevalence of the metabolic syndrome and its components in the collegiate linemen may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial

Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments. Trial registration number NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.

A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Enalapril in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection FractionClinical Perspective: Effects on Exercise Tolerance and Arterial Distensibility

Background—Exercise intolerance is the primary symptom in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF); however, little is known regarding its mechanisms and therapy. Methods and Results—Seventy-one stable elderly (70±1 years) patients (80% women) with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure were randomized into a 12-month follow-up double-blind trial of enalapril 20 mg/d versus placebo. Assessments were peak exercise oxygen consumption; 6-minute walk test; Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire; MRI; Doppler echocardiography; and vascular ultrasound. Compliance by pill count was excellent (94%). Twenty-five patients in the enalapril group versus 34 in the placebo group completed the 12-month follow-up. During follow-up, there was no difference in the primary outcome of peak exercise oxygen consumption (enalapril, 14.5±3.2 mL/kg/min; placebo, 14.3±3.4 mL/kg/min; P=0.99), or in 6-minute walk distance, aortic distensibility (the primary mechanistic outcome), left ventricle mass, or neurohormonal profile. The effect size of enalapril on peak exercise oxygen consumption was small (0.7%; 95% CI, 4.2% to 5.6%). There was a trend toward improved Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire total score (P=0.07), a modest reduction in systolic blood pressure at peak exercise (P=0.02), and a marginal improvement in carotid arterial distensibility (P=0.04). Conclusions—In stable, older patients with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure, 12 months of enalapril did not improve exercise capacity or aortic distensibility. These data, combined with those from large clinical event trials, suggest that angiotensin inhibition does not substantially improve key long-term clinical outcomes in this group of patients. This finding contrasts sharply with observations in HF with reduced EF and highlights our incomplete understanding of this important and common disorder.

A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Enalapril in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection FractionClinical Perspective

Background—Exercise intolerance is the primary symptom in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF); however, little is known regarding its mechanisms and therapy. Methods and Results—Seventy-one stable elderly (70±1 years) patients (80% women) with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure were randomized into a 12-month follow-up double-blind trial of enalapril 20 mg/d versus placebo. Assessments were peak exercise oxygen consumption; 6-minute walk test; Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire; MRI; Doppler echocardiography; and vascular ultrasound. Compliance by pill count was excellent (94%). Twenty-five patients in the enalapril group versus 34 in the placebo group completed the 12-month follow-up. During follow-up, there was no difference in the primary outcome of peak exercise oxygen consumption (enalapril, 14.5±3.2 mL/kg/min; placebo, 14.3±3.4 mL/kg/min; P=0.99), or in 6-minute walk distance, aortic distensibility (the primary mechanistic outcome), left ventricle mass, or neurohormonal profile. The effect size of enalapril on peak exercise oxygen consumption was small (0.7%; 95% CI, 4.2% to 5.6%). There was a trend toward improved Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire total score (P=0.07), a modest reduction in systolic blood pressure at peak exercise (P=0.02), and a marginal improvement in carotid arterial distensibility (P=0.04). Conclusions—In stable, older patients with compensated HFPEF and controlled blood pressure, 12 months of enalapril did not improve exercise capacity or aortic distensibility. These data, combined with those from large clinical event trials, suggest that angiotensin inhibition does not substantially improve key long-term clinical outcomes in this group of patients. This finding contrasts sharply with observations in HF with reduced EF and highlights our incomplete understanding of this important and common disorder.