Michel White

Comparison of Candesartan, Enalapril, and Their Combination in Congestive Heart Failure Randomized Evaluation of Strategies for Left Ventricular Dysfunction (RESOLVD) Pilot Study: The RESOLVD Pilot Study Investigators

BACKGROUND We investigated the effects of candesartan (an angiotensin II antagonist) alone, enalapril alone, and their combination on exercise tolerance, ventricular function, quality of life (QOL), neurohormone levels, and tolerability in congestive heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS Seven hundred sixty-eight patients in New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA-FC) II to IV with ejection fraction (EF) <0.40 and a 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) <500 m received either candesartan (4, 8, or 16 mg), candesartan (4 or 8 mg) plus 20 mg of enalapril, or 20 mg of enalapril for 43 weeks. There were no differences among groups with regard to 6MWD, NYHA-FC, or QOL. EF increased (P=NS) more with candesartan-plus-enalapril therapy (0.025+/-0.004) than with candesartan alone (0.015+/-0.004) or enalapril alone(0.015+/-0.005). End-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes increased less with combination therapy (EDV 8+/-4 mL; ESV 1+/-4 mL; P<0.01) than with candesartan alone (EDV 27+/-4 mL; ESV 18+/-3 mL) or enalapril alone (EDV 23+/-7 mL; ESV 14+/-6 mL). Blood pressure decreased with combination therapy (6+/-1/4+/-1 mm Hg) compared with candesartan or enalapril alone (P<0.05). Aldosterone decreased (P<0.05) with combination therapy (23.2+/-5.3 pg/mL) at 17 but not 43 weeks compared with candesartan (0.7+/-7.8 pg/mL) or enalapril (-0.8+/-11. 3 pg/mL). Brain natriuretic peptide decreased with combination therapy (5.8+/-2.7 pmol/L; P<0.01) compared with candesartan (4. 4+/-3.8 pmol/L) and enalapril alone (4.0+/-5.0 pmol/L). CONCLUSIONS Candesartan alone was as effective, safe, and tolerable as enalapril. The combination of candesartan and enalapril was more beneficial for preventing left ventricular remodeling than either candesartan or enalapril alone.

Enalapril Decreases the Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction Insight From the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Trials

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently encountered in patients with heart failure (HF) and is also a predictor of morbidity and mortality in this population. Recent experimental studies have shown electrical and structural atrial remodeling with increased fibrosis in animals with HF and have suggested a preventive effect of ACE inhibitors (ACEi) on the development of AF. To verify the hypothesis that ACEi prevent the development of AF in patients with HF, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the patients from the Montreal Heart Institute (MHI) included in the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). Methods and Results Clinical charts were reviewed and serial ECGs interpreted by a single cardiologist blinded to drug allocation. Patients with AF or flutter on the baseline ECG were excluded. Baseline characteristics were obtained from the SOLVD databases. The mean follow‐up was 2.9±1.0 years. Of the 391 patients randomly assigned at MHI, 374 were in sinus rhythm at the time of random assignment, with 186 taking enalapril and 188 taking placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for a higher incidence of previous myocardial infarction in the enalapril group. Fifty‐five patients had AF during the follow‐up: 10 (5.4%) in the enalapril group and 45 (24%) in the placebo group (P<0.0001). By Cox multivariate analysis, enalapril was the most powerful predictor for risk reduction of AF (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.44; P<0.0001). Conclusions Treatment with the ACEi enalapril markedly reduces the risk of development of atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. (Circulation. 2003;107:2926‐2931.)

Canadian Cardiovascular Society consensus conference recommendations on heart failure 2006: Diagnosis and management

Heart failure remains a common diagnosis, especially in older individuals. It continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, but major advances in both diagnosis and management have occurred and will continue to improve symptoms and other outcomes in patients. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society published its first consensus conference recommendations on the diagnosis and management of heart failure in 1994, followed by two brief updates, and reconvened this consensus conference to provide a comprehensive review of current knowledge and management strategies. New clinical trial evidence and meta-analyses were critically reviewed by a multidisciplinary primary panel who developed both recommendations and practical tips, which were reviewed by a secondary panel. The resulting document is intended to provide practical advice for specialists, family physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others who are involved in the care of heart failure patients. Management of heart failure begins with an accurate diagnosis, and requires rational combination drug therapy, individualization of care for each patient (based on their symptoms, clinical presentation and disease severity), appropriate mechanical interventions including revascularization and devices, collaborative efforts among health care professionals, and education and cooperation of the patient and their immediate caregivers. The goal is to translate best evidence-based therapies into clinical practice with a measureable impact on the health of heart failure patients in Canada.

Effects of Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Outcomes in Chronic Systolic Heart Failure

Background— Studies of the effect of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) on outcomes in heart failure (HF) are limited by small sample size and short follow-up. Methods and Results— We examined the effect of baseline RVEF on outcomes in 2008 Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) participants with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% during 24 months of mean follow-up. RVEF, estimated by gated-equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography, was used to categorize patients into 4 RVEF groups: ≥40% (n=733), 30% to 39% (n=531), 20% to 29% (n=473), and <20% (n=271). Unadjusted rates for all-cause mortality in patients with RVEF ≥40%, 30% to 39%, 20% to 29%, and <20% were 27%, 32%, 35%, and 47%, respectively. When compared with patients with RVEF ≥40%, unadjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality for those with RVEF 30% to 39%, 20% to 29%, and <20% were 1.19 (0.97 to 1.46; P=0.087), 1.45 (1.17 to 1.78; P=0.001), and 1.98 (1.59 to 2.47; P<0.0001), respectively. Respective multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality associated with RVEF 30% to 39%, 20% to 29%, and <20% were 1.07 (0.87 to 1.32; P=0.518), 1.12 (0.89 to 1.40; P=0.328), and 1.32 (1.02 to 1.71; P=0.034), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for other outcomes associated with RVEF <20% (compared with ≥40%) were as follows: cardiovascular mortality, 1.33 (1.01 to 1.76; P=0.041); HF mortality, 1.61 (1.03 to 2.52; P=0.037); sudden cardiac death, 1.29 (0.87 to 1.91; P=0.212); all-cause hospitalization, 1.21 (1.00 to 1.47; P=0.056); and HF hospitalization, 1.39 (1.10 to 1.77; P=0.007). Conclusions— Baseline RVEF <20% is a significant independent predictor of mortality and HF hospitalization in systolic HF.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference recommendations on heart failure update 2007: Prevention, management during intercurrent illness or acute decompensation, and use of biomarkers

Heart failure is common, yet it is difficult to treat. It presents in many different guises and circumstances in which therapy needs to be individualized. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society published a comprehensive set of recommendations in January 2006 on the diagnosis and management of heart failure, and the present update builds on those core recommendations. Based on feedback obtained through a national program of heart failure workshops during 2006, several topics were identified as priorities because of the challenges they pose to health care professionals. New evidence-based recommendations were developed using the structured approach for the review and assessment of evidence adopted and previously described by the Society. Specific recommendations and practical tips were written for the prevention of heart failure, the management of heart failure during intercurrent illness, the treatment of acute heart failure, and the current and future roles of biomarkers in heart failure care. Specific clinical questions that are addressed include: which patients should be identified as being at high risk of developing heart failure and which interventions should be used? What complications can occur in heart failure patients during an intercurrent illness, how should these patients be monitored and which medications may require a dose adjustment or discontinuation? What are the best therapeutic, both drug and nondrug, strategies for patients with acute heart failure? How can new biomarkers help in the treatment of heart failure, and when and how should BNP be measured in heart failure patients? The goals of the present update are to translate best evidence into practice, to apply clinical wisdom where evidence for specific strategies is weaker, and to aid physicians and other health care providers to optimally treat heart failure patients to result in a measurable impact on patient health and clinical outcomes in Canada.

Enalapril Reduces the Incidence of Diabetes in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Background—Diabetes mellitus is a predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on the prevention of diabetes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction is unknown. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effect of the ACE inhibitor enalapril on the incidence of diabetes in the group of patients from the Montreal Heart Institute enrolled in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). Methods and Results—Clinical charts were evaluated for fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels by blinded reviewers. A diagnosis of diabetes was made when a FPG ≥126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) was found at 2 visits (follow-up, 2.9±1.0 years). Of the 391 patients enrolled at the Montreal Heart Institute, 291 were not diabetic (FPG <126 mg/dL without a history of diabetes), 153 of these were on enalapril and 138 were on placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Forty patients developed diabetes during follow-up, 9 (5.9%) in the enalapril group and 31 (22.4%) in the placebo group (P <0.0001). By multivariate analysis, enalapril remained the most powerful predictor for risk reduction of developing diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence intervals, 0.10 to 0.46;P <0.0001). The effect of enalapril was striking in the subgroup of patients with impaired FPG (110 mg/dL [6.1 mmol/L] ≤FPG <126 mg/dL) at baseline: 1 patient (3.3%) in the enalapril group versus 12 (48.0%) in the placebo group developed diabetes (P <0.0001). Conclusions—Enalapril significantly reduces the incidence of diabetes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, especially those with impaired FPG.

Impact of care at a multidisciplinary congestive heart failure clinic: a randomized trial

Background: Although multidisciplinary congestive heart failure clinics in the United States appear to be effective in reducing the number of hospital readmissions, it is unclear whether the same benefit is seen in countries such as Canada, where access to both general and specialized medical care is free and unrestricted. We sought to determine the impact of care at a multidisciplinary specialized outpatient congestive heart failure clinic compared with standard care. Methods: We randomly assigned 230 eligible patients who had experienced an acute episode of congestive heart failure to standard care (n = 115) or follow-up at a multidisciplinary specialized heart failure outpatient clinic (n = 115). The intervention consisted of a structured outpatient clinic environment with complete access to cardiologists and allied health professionals. The primary outcomes were all-cause hospital admission rates and total number of days in hospital at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were total number of emergency department visits, quality of life and total mortality. Results: At 6 months, fewer patients in the intervention group had required readmission to hospital than patients in the control group (45 [39%] v. 66 [57%], crude hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–0.92. Patients in the intervention group stayed in hospital for 514 days compared with 815 days required by patients in the control group (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35–0.89). The number of patients seen in the emergency department and the total number of emergency department visits were similar in the intervention and control groups. At 6 months, quality of life, which was self-assessed using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, was unchanged in the control group but improved in the intervention group (p < 0.001). No difference in mortality was observed, with 19 deaths in the control group and 12 in the intervention group (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24–1.54). Interpretation: Compared with usual care, care at a multidisciplinary specialized congestive heart failure outpatient clinic reduced the number of hospital readmissions and hospital days and improved quality of life. When our results are integrated with those from other, similar trials, multidisciplinary disease management strategies for congestive heart failure are associated with clinically worthwhile improvements in survival.

Incident Heart Failure Hospitalization and Subsequent Mortality in Chronic Heart Failure: A Propensity-Matched Study

OBJECTIVE Hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF) is common and associated with high mortality. However, the effect of incident HF hospitalization (compared with no HF hospitalization) on subsequent mortality has not been studied in a propensity-matched population of chronic HF patients. METHODS In the Digitalis Investigation Group trial, 5501 patients had no HF hospitalizations (4512 alive at 2 years after randomization) and 1732 patients had HF hospitalizations during the first 2 years (1091 alive at 2 years). Propensity scores for incident HF hospitalization during the first 2 years after randomization were calculated for each patient and used to match 1057 patients (97%) who had 2-year HF hospitalization with 1057 patients who had no HF hospitalization. We used matched Cox regression analysis to estimate the effect of incident HF hospitalization during the first 2 years after randomization on post-2-year mortality. RESULTS Compared with 153 deaths (rate, 420/10,000 person-years) in the no HF hospitalization group, 334 deaths (rate, 964/10,000 person-years) occurred in the HF hospitalization group (hazard ratio 2.49; 95% confidence interval 1.97-3.13; P < .0001). The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for cardiovascular and HF mortality were 2.88 (2.23-3.74; P < .0001) and 5.22 (3.34-8.15; P < .0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Hospitalization for worsening HF was associated with increased risk of subsequent mortality in ambulatory patients with chronic HF. These results highlight the importance of HF hospitalization as a marker of disease progression and poor outcomes in chronic HF, reinforcing the need for prevention of HF hospitalizations and strategies to improve postdischarge outcomes.

Endothelin A Receptor Blockade Causes Adverse Left Ventricular Remodeling but Improves Pulmonary Artery Pressure After Infarction in the Rat

BACKGROUND Endothelin A (ETA) receptor antagonists have been shown to improve ventricular remodeling and survival in rats when started 10 days after infarction. Whether starting them earlier would have a more or less beneficial effect is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS Rats surviving an acute myocardial infarction (MI) for 24 hours (n=403) were assigned to saline or the ETA receptor antagonist LU 127043 or its active enantiomer LU 135252 for 4 weeks. Chronic LU treatment had no effect on survival, with 46% of LU rats and 47% of saline-treated rats with large MI surviving to the end of the study. LU treatment led to scar thinning, further left ventricular (LV) dilatation, an increase in LV end-diastolic pressure, and an increase in wet lung weight (P<0.05). Despite this detrimental effect on LV function, LU led to a significant decrease in RV systolic (50+/-2 to 44+/-2 mm Hg, P<0.05 vs saline) and right atrial pressures. LU treatment also prevented the increase in pulmonary ET-1 found in saline-treated rats with large MI but did not modify the increase in cardiac ET-1 in hearts with large MI. CONCLUSIONS The early use of the ETA receptor antagonists LU 127043 or its active enantiomer LU 135252 after infarction in the rat leads to impaired scar healing and LV dilatation and dysfunction. This is accompanied by a decrease in RV systolic and right atrial pressures and a decrease in pulmonary but not cardiac ET-1 levels. It would thus appear that the early use of ETA receptor antagonists after infarction may be detrimental.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference guidelines on heart failure - 2008 update: Best practices for the transition of care of heart failure patients, and the recognition, investigation and treatment of cardiomyopathies

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome that normally requires health care to be provided by both specialists and nonspecialists. This is advantageous because patients benefit from complementary skill sets and experience, but can present challenges in the development of a common, shared treatment plan. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society published a comprehensive set of recommendations on the diagnosis and management of heart failure in January 2006, and on the prevention, management during intercurrent illness or acute decompensation, and use of biomarkers in January 2007. The present update builds on those core recommendations. Based on feedback obtained through a national program of heart failure workshops during 2006 and 2007, several topics were identified as priorities because of the challenges they pose to health care professionals. New evidence-based recommendations were developed using the structured approach for the review and assessment of evidence that was adopted and previously described by the Society. Specific recommendations and practical tips were written for best practices during the transition of care of heart failure patients, and the recognition, investigation and treatment of some specific cardiomyopathies. Specific clinical questions that are addressed include: What information should a referring physician provide for a specialist consultation? What instructions should a consultant provide to the referring physician? What processes should be in place to ensure that the expectations and needs of each physician are met? When a cardiomyopathy is suspected, how can it be recognized, how should it be investigated and diagnosed, how should it be treated, when should the patient be referred, and what special tests are available to assist in the diagnosis and treatment? The goals of the present update are to translate best evidence into practice, apply clinical wisdom where evidence for specific strategies is weaker, and aid physicians and other health care providers to optimally treat heart failure patients, resulting in a measurable impact on patient health and clinical outcomes in Canada.