Salim Yusuf

Comparison of neuroendocrine activation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction with and without congestive heart failure : a substudy of the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD)

Neuroendocrine activation is known to occur in patients with congestive heart failure, but there is uncertainty as to whether this occurs before or after the presence of overt symptoms. In the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD), a multicenter study of patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less, we compared baseline plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity, plasma atrial natriuretic factor, and plasma arginine vasopressin in 56 control subjects, 151 patients with left ventricular dysfunction (no overt heart failure), and 81 patients with overt heart failure before randomization. Median values for plasma norepinephrine (p = 0.0001), plasma atrial natriuretic factor (p less than 0.0001), plasma arginine vasopressin (p = 0.006), and plasma renin activity (p = 0.03) were significantly higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction than in normal control subjects. Neuroendocrine values were highest in patients with overt heart failure. Plasma renin activity was normal in patients with left ventricular dysfunction without heart failure who were not receiving diuretics and was significantly increased (p less than 0.05) in patients on diuretic therapy. We conclude that neuroendocrine activation occurs in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and no heart failure. Neuroendocrine activation is further increased as overt heart failure ensues and diuretics are added to therapy.

Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUNDnEarlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain.nnnMETHODSnWe randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months.nnnRESULTSnCoronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity).nnnCONCLUSIONSnEarly intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

Candesartan in heart failure—assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM): Rationale and design☆

BACKGROUNDnChronic heart failure (CHF) is an increasing burden to health care. Pharmacological treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta blockers improve survival and reduce hospitalizations in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Despite these therapies, morbidity and mortality remains problematic. Furthermore, 30% to 50% of patients with CHF have a preserved LVEF. It is not known if treatments are of benefit in this group.nnnDESIGNnCandesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) is a program designed to investigate the clinical usefulness of the long-acting angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil, in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic heart failure. Patients with systolic dysfunction, tolerant or intolerant to an ACE-inhibitor, and patients with preserved systolic function are included. Specifically, the CHARM program consists of 3 independent, parallel, placebo-controlled studies in patients with (1) LVEF less than or equal to 40%, ACE-inhibitor treated (n = 2,300); (2) LVEF less than or equal to 40%, ACE-inhibitor intolerant (n = 1,700); (3) LVEF greater than 40%, not treated with ACE inhibitors (n = 2,500). The 3 studies will be combined to evaluate the effect of candesartan cilexetil on all-cause mortality in the broad spectrum of symptomatic heart failure. The primary objective in each trial is to evaluate the effects on the combined endpoint of cardiovascular mortality or CHF hospitalization. Other endpoints include the effects on myocardial infarction, all-cause hospitalization, and resource utilization. CHARM is intended to randomize 6,500 patients with symptomatic heart failure from 26 countries in Europe, the United States, Canada, South Africa, and Australia. The CHARM program started to enroll patients in March 1999. The follow-up period is a minimum of 2 years. The study is expected to end in the third quarter of 2002.

Effect of amiodarone on mortality after myocardial infarction: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study☆

OBJECTIVESnThe goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of amiodarone on mortality, ventricular arrhythmias and clinical complications in high risk postinfarction patients.nnnBACKGROUNDnNo therapy has been shown to reduce sudden death in patients ineligible to receive beta-adrenergic blocking agents after myocardial infarction.nnnMETHODSnPatients who were not eligible to receive beta-blockers were randomized to receive amiodarone (n = 305) or placebo (n = 308) for 1 year.nnnRESULTSnThere were 21 deaths in the amiodarone group compared with 33 in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 1.08, p = 0.095). There were two noncardiac deaths in the amiodarone group and none in the placebo group; thus, the difference in cardiac mortality (19 vs. 33, respectively) was statistically significant (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99, p = 0.048). There was a significant decrease in Lown class 4 ventricular arrhythmias (7.5% vs. 19.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Adverse effects developed in 30% of amiodarone-treated patients and 10% of placebo-treated patients. Pulmonary toxicity, which was mild and reversible, occurred in only one patient in the amiodarone group but in no patient in the placebo group.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis trial demonstrated a significant reduction in cardiac mortality and ventricular arrhythmias with amiodarone treatment. However, given the wide confidence intervals and borderline statistical significance of our trial, larger trials are needed to confirm or refute this view.

Clinical correlates and consequences of anemia in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure: results of the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) Program.

Background— We wished to determine the prevalence of, potential mechanistic associations of, and clinical outcomes related to anemia in patients with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and Results— In multivariable analyses, we examined the associations between hemoglobin and baseline characteristics, laboratory variables, and outcomes in 2653 patients randomized in the CHARM Program in the United States and Canada. Anemia was equally common in patients with preserved (27%) and reduced (25%) LVEF but was more common in black and older patients. Anemia was associated with ethnicity, diabetes, low body mass index, higher systolic and lower diastolic blood pressure, and recent heart failure hospitalization. More than 50% of anemic patients had a glomerular filtration rate <60 mL · min−1 · 1.73 m−2 compared with <30% of nonanemic patients. Despite an inverse relationship between hemoglobin and LVEF, anemia was associated with an increased risk of death and hospitalization, a relationship observed in patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF. There were 133 versus 69 deaths and 527 versus 352 hospitalizations per 1000 patient-years of follow-up in anemic versus nonanemic patients (both P<0.001). The effect of candesartan in reducing outcomes was independent of hemoglobin. Conclusions— Anemia was common in heart failure, regardless of LVEF. Lower hemoglobin was associated with higher LVEF yet was an independent predictor of adverse mortality and morbidity outcomes. In heart failure, the causes of anemia and the associations between anemia and outcomes are probably multiple and complex.

Sex Differences in Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure Results of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Program

Background— We wished to test previous hypotheses that sex-related differences in mortality and morbidity may be due to differences in the cause of heart failure or in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by comparing fatal and nonfatal outcomes in women and men with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods and Results— We compared outcomes in 2400 women and 5199 men randomized in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program using multivariable regression analyses. A total of 1188 women (50%) had a low LVEF (≤0.40), and 1212 had a preserved LVEF (>0.40). Among the men, 3388 (65%) had a low LVEF, and 1811 had a preserved LVEF. A total of 1216 women (51%) and 3465 men (67%) had an ischemic cause of their heart failure. All-cause mortality was 21.5% in women and 25.3% in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86; P<0.001). Fewer women (30.4%) than men (33.3%) experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91; P<0.001). The risks of sudden death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89) were reduced to a comparable extent. The adjusted risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was also lower in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95), mainly because of a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97). Women had a lower risk of death irrespective of cause of heart failure or LVEF. Conclusions— Among patients with heart failure, women have lower risks of most fatal and nonfatal outcomes that are not explained, as previously suggested, by LVEF or origin of the heart failure.

Characterization of health‐related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM

Limited comparative studies assessing the health‐related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate.

Clinical features and contemporary management of patients with low and preserved ejection fraction heart failure: baseline characteristics of patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure—Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

To describe the clinical characteristics and contemporary treatment of a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) randomised in the Candesartan in Heart failure—Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, consisting of three component studies comparing placebo to candesartan.

Clinical characteristics of patients in studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD).

The Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trials were designed to evaluate the effects of enalapril on long-term mortality in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Patients with LV ejection fractions less than or equal to 0.35 and symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) were enrolled in the treatment trial, whereas those with no history of overt CHF and taking no treatment directed for LV dysfunction were enrolled in the prevention trial. The baseline clinical characteristics of SOLVD patients were compared to characterize differences between patients in these 2 separate but concurrent trials. From over 70,000 patients screened with LV dysfunction, 4,228 patients were enrolled in the prevention trial and 2,569 patients in the treatment trial. Ischemic heart disease was the primary cause of LV dysfunction in both prevention (83%) and treatment (71%) trial patients. Prior myocardial infarction was present in 80% of the prevention and 66% of the treatment trial patients (p less than 0.001). In the prevention trial, infarction was recent (less than or equal to 6 months) in 27% patients and remote (greater than 6 months) in 57% patients. Treatment trial patients had proportionately more women (20 vs 13%; p less than 0.001) and non-Caucasians (20 vs 14%; p less than 0.001), as well as the coexisting risk factors of hypertension (42 vs 37%; p less than 0.001) and diabetes (26 vs 15%; p less than 0.001) than did prevention trial patients. Clinical characteristics of patients in both trials were influenced by the gender and race of enrolled patients. Similarly, coronary artery bypass surgery was performed less often in women and non-Caucasians.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Digitalis--a new controversy regarding an old drug. The pitfalls of inappropriate methods.

The use of digitalis has long been plagued by controversy. In the last few years, its efficacy in the prolonged treatment of heart failure among specific groups of patients has been questioned. The current controversy stems from a claim by Moss et al.2 that the use of digitalis may increase mortality among infarction patients with heart failure and complex arrhythmias. Other investigators,3-5 on examining their own data, have found no evidence that digitalis is harmful (table 1). All of these claims, however, have been based not on the results of reliably controlled studies, but on inferences from data bases collected for other purposes. These investigators have used various statistical methods that are purported to overcome the biases arising when observational data are used to assess the effects of treatments. The fundamental problem, of course, is that not only may the treatment affect both the patients condition and outcome, but conversely various features of the patients condition may affect the choice of treatment. Features recorded before the institution of a treatment can at least be allowed for in analysis. But unrecorded features cannot be allowed for, and may instead lead to bias and to a mistaken conclusion that a treatment caused a patients death when in fact it was used because the patient was at risk of death. The classic example is the old joke that, The