Marco Metra

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Beta blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. METHODS In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II-IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0.35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0.26 (0.07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.93], p=0.0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94 [0.86-1.02], p=0.122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.

Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary

We thank the authors for raising the interesting discussion regarding the treatment of hypertension in patients with concomitant coronary disease. The J-shaped association between on-treatment blood pressure and risk has been described in longitudinal cohorts of patients with treated hypertension as well as in clinical trial populations, both in on-treatment and control arms. However, it is not absolutely clear that the association is treatmentrelated; in fact, one meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials including data on more than 40 000 patients has shown that the J-shaped relationship between blood pressure and mortality was not related to antihypertensive treatment. In this meta-analysis, noncardiovascular death was inversely related to blood pressure (both systolic and diastolic) in contrast to the J-shaped relationships for cardiovascular and total mortality, leading the authors to hypothesize that poor health conditions leading to low blood pressure and an increased risk of death might in part explain the J-shaped curve. Secondly, as discussed in the full-text version of the guidelines, there is accumulating evidence that blood pressure lowering in the ‘normal’ range is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes in the population with known coronary disease. In the CAMELOT study, patients with coronary disease and mean blood pressure of 129/78 were randomized to enalapril, amlodipine, or placebo. Blood pressure reductions were similar (5/2 mm) in both treatment groups and associated with similar relative reductions in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke, although not statistically significant in either group because of the small sample size. An intravascular ultrasound substudy demonstrated a significant inverse correlation between progression of atherosclerosis and blood pressure reduction even in this normal blood pressure range, with the greatest benefit observed in patients whose blood pressure fell below 120/80. Thus, the task force has felt it important, in the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary, to preserve consistency between guidelines on prevention and angina with regard to targets for institution of therapy for hypertension in the presence of coronary disease. No lower limit has yet been identified as a definite cutoff beyond which blood pressure should not be lowered further, although, clearly, symptomatic hypotension or postural hypotension will limit aggressive blood pressure lowering in the lower range.

Effect of Nesiritide in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P≤0.005 for both assessments or P≤0.0025 for either) was not met. The rate of rehospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause within 30 days was 9.4% in the nesiritide group versus 10.1% in the placebo group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.7; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in rates of death from any cause at 30 days (3.6% with nesiritide vs. 4.0% with placebo; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.5) or rates of worsening renal function, defined by more than a 25% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (31.4% vs. 29.5%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.21; P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS Nesiritide was not associated with an increase or a decrease in the rate of death and rehospitalization and had a small, nonsignificant effect on dyspnea when used in combination with other therapies. It was not associated with a worsening of renal function, but it was associated with an increase in rates of hypotension. On the basis of these results, nesiritide cannot be recommended for routine use in the broad population of patients with acute heart failure. (Funded by Scios; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00475852.).

Serelaxin, recombinant human relaxin-2, for treatment of acute heart failure (RELAX-AHF): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Serelaxin, recombinant human relaxin-2, is a vasoactive peptide hormone with many biological and haemodynamic effects. In a pilot study, serelaxin was safe and well tolerated with positive clinical outcome signals in patients with acute heart failure. The RELAX-AHF trial tested the hypothesis that serelaxin-treated patients would have greater dyspnoea relief compared with patients treated with standard care and placebo. METHODS RELAX-AHF was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling patients admitted to hospital for acute heart failure who were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central randomisation scheme blocked by study centre to standard care plus 48-h intravenous infusions of placebo or serelaxin (30 μg/kg per day) within 16 h from presentation. All patients had dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal prohormone of BNP, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure greater than 125 mm Hg. Patients, personnel administering study drug, and those undertaking study-related assessments were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints evaluating dyspnoea improvement were change from baseline in the visual analogue scale area under the curve (VAS AUC) to day 5 and the proportion of patients with moderate or marked dyspnoea improvement measured by Likert scale during the first 24 h, both analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00520806. FINDINGS 1161 patients were randomly assigned to serelaxin (n=581) or placebo (n=580). Serelaxin improved the VAS AUC primary dyspnoea endpoint (448 mm × h, 95% CI 120-775; p=0·007) compared with placebo, but had no significant effect on the other primary endpoint (Likert scale; placebo, 150 patients [26%]; serelaxin, 156 [27%]; p=0·70). No significant effects were recorded for the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular death or readmission to hospital for heart failure or renal failure (placebo, 75 events [60-day Kaplan-Meier estimate, 13·0%]; serelaxin, 76 events [13·2%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·74-1·41], p=0·89] or days alive out of the hospital up to day 60 (placebo, 47·7 [SD 12·1] days; serelaxin, 48·3 [11·6]; p=0·37). Serelaxin treatment was associated with significant reductions of other prespecified additional endpoints, including fewer deaths at day 180 (placebo, 65 deaths; serelaxin, 42; HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·42-0·93; p=0·019). INTERPRETATION Treatment of acute heart failure with serelaxin was associated with dyspnoea relief and improvement in other clinical outcomes, but had no effect on readmission to hospital. Serelaxin treatment was well tolerated and safe, supported by the reduced 180-day mortality. FUNDING Corthera, a Novartis affiliate company.

Rolofylline, an Adenosine A1−Receptor Antagonist, in Acute Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patients clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. RESULTS Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.).

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

Relaxin for the treatment of patients with acute heart failure (Pre-RELAX-AHF): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding phase IIb study

BACKGROUND Most patients admitted for acute heart failure have normal or increase blood pressure. Relaxin is a natural human peptide that affects multiple vascular control pathways, suggesting potential mechanisms of benefit for such patients. We assessed the dose response of relaxins effect on symptom relief, other clinical outcomes, and safety. METHODS In a placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study, 234 patients with acute heart failure, dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, and increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal prohormone of BNP, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure greater than 125 mm Hg were recruited from 54 sites in eight countries and enrolled within 16 h of presentation. Patients were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner via a telephone-based interactive voice response system, to standard care plus 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo (n=62) or relaxin 10 microg/kg (n=40), 30 microg/kg (n=43), 100 microg/kg (n=39), or 250 microg/kg (n=50) per day. Several clinical endpoints were explored to assess whether intravenous relaxin should be pursued in larger studies of acute heart failure, to identify an optimum dose, and to help to assess endpoint selection and power calculations. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00520806. FINDINGS In the modified intention-to-treat population, 61 patients were assessed in the placebo group, 40 in the relaxin 10 microg/kg per day group, 42 in the relaxin 30 microg/kg per day group, 37 in the relaxin 100 microg/kg per day group, and 49 in the relaxin 250 microg/kg per day group. Dyspnoea improved with relaxin 30 microg/kg compared with placebo, as assessed by Likert scale (17 of 42 patients [40%] moderately or markedly improved at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h vs 14 of 61 [23%]; p=0.044) and visual analogue scale through day 14 (8214 mm x h [SD 8712] vs 4622 mm x h [9003]; p=0.053). Length of stay was 10.2 days (SD 6.1) for relaxin-treated patients versus 12.0 days (7.3) for those given placebo, and days alive out of hospital were 47.9 (10.1) versus 44.2 (14.2). Cardiovascular death or readmission due to heart or renal failure at day 60 was reduced with relaxin (2.6% [95% CI 0.4-16.8] vs 17.2% [9.6-29.6]; p=0.053). The number of serious adverse events was similar between groups. INTERPRETATION When given to patients with acute heart failure and normal-to-increased blood pressure, relaxin was associated with favourable relief of dyspnoea and other clinical outcomes, with acceptable safety.

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation—Executive Summary

WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Co-Chair; Lars E. Rydén, MD, PhD, FACC, FESC, FAHA, Co-Chair; David S. Cannom, MD, FACC; Harry J. Crijns, MD, FACC, FESC*; Anne B. Curtis, MD, FACC, FAHA; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, FACC†; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Jean-Yves Le Heuzey, MD, FESC; G. Neal Kay, MD, FACC; James E. Lowe, MD, FACC; S. Bertil Olsson, MD, PhD, FESC; Eric N. Prystowsky, MD, FACC; Juan Luis Tamargo, MD, FESC; Samuel Wann, MD, FACC, FESC

Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and exercise hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVES The study evaluated the effects of short- and long-term administration of carvedilol in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. BACKGROUND Carvedilol is a beta-adrenergic blocking agent with vasodilator activity that might be well tolerated in patients with heart failure. METHODS Forty patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy treated with digoxin, furosemide and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive either placebo or carvedilol. Right heart hemodynamic variables were evaluated up to 8 h after short-term drug administration and, on the next day, during cardiopulmonary exercise testing before and 3 h after drug ingestion. Placebo or carvedilol was added to standard therapy, starting with a dose of 6.25 mg twice a day with weekly increments up to the maximum of 25 mg twice a day. Patients were reevaluated after 4 months by cardiopulmonary exercise testing and measurement of right heart hemodynamic variables 12 h after last drug ingestion and 3 h after drug readministration. Left ventricular ejection fraction and volume, measured by equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography, quality of life and submaximal exercise duration were assessed before and after long-term therapy. RESULTS Compared with placebo, carvedilol produced a short-term reduction in heart rate and pulmonary artery and pulmonary wedge pressures and, after long-term administration, increased both rest and peak exercise cardiac, stroke volume and stroke work indexes, with a further reduction in right atrial, pulmonary artery and pulmonary wedge pressures. Long-term carvedilol administration also improved rest left ventricular ejection fraction (from 20 +/- 7% to 30 +/- 12%, p < 0.001), submaximal exercise capacity, quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class. No baseline variable was predictive of the response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS Short-term carvedilol administration reduces heart rate and mean pulmonary artery and pulmonary wedge pressures, whereas it improves both long-term rest and exercise left ventricular systolic function, reduces heart failure symptoms and improves submaximal exercise tolerance in patients with idiopathic cardiomyopathy.