| 1. |
- Cleland, John G F, et al.
(författare)
-
Plasma concentration of amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in chronic heart failure: prediction of cardiovascular events and interaction with the effects of rosuvastatin: a report from CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure).
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 54:20, s. 1850-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether plasma amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a marker of cardiac dysfunction and prognosis measured in CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure), could be used to identify the severity of heart failure at which statins become ineffective. BACKGROUND: Statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in many patients with ischemic heart disease but not, overall, those with heart failure. There must be a transition point at which treatment with a statin becomes futile. METHODS: In CORONA, patients with heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and ischemic heart disease were randomly assigned to 10 mg/day rosuvastatin or placebo. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Of 5,011 patients enrolled, NT-proBNP was measured in 3,664 (73%). The midtertile included values between 103 pmol/l (868 pg/ml) and 277 pmol/l (2,348 pg/ml). Log NT-proBNP was the strongest predictor (per log unit) of every outcome assessed but was strongest for death from worsening heart failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71 to 2.30), was weaker for sudden death (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.88), and was weakest for atherothrombotic events (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.40). Patients in the lowest tertile of NT-proBNP had the best prognosis and, if assigned to rosuvastatin rather than placebo, had a greater reduction in the primary end point (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88) than patients in the other tertiles (heterogeneity test, p = 0.0192). This reflected fewer atherothrombotic events and sudden deaths with rosuvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure due to ischemic heart disease who have NT-proBNP values <103 pmol/l (868 pg/ml) may benefit from rosuvastatin.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kjekshus, John, et al.
(författare)
-
Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 357:22, s. 2248-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure have generally been excluded from statin trials. Acute coronary events are uncommon in this population, and statins have theoretical risks in these patients. METHODS: A total of 5011 patients at least 60 years of age with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of rosuvastatin or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause, any coronary event, death from cardiovascular causes, and the number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: As compared with the placebo group, patients in the rosuvastatin group had decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (difference between groups, 45.0%; P<0.001) and of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (difference between groups, 37.1%; P<0.001). During a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the primary outcome occurred in 692 patients in the rosuvastatin group and 732 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.02; P=0.12), and 728 patients and 759 patients, respectively, died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.31). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the coronary outcome or death from cardiovascular causes. In a prespecified secondary analysis, there were fewer hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes in the rosuvastatin group (2193) than in the placebo group (2564) (P<0.001). No excessive episodes of muscle-related or other adverse events occurred in the rosuvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin did not reduce the primary outcome or the number of deaths from any cause in older patients with systolic heart failure, although the drug did reduce the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations. The drug did not cause safety problems. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00206310.)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Maisel, Alan, et al.
(författare)
-
State of the art : Using natriuretic peptide levels in clinical practice
- 2008
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 10:9, s. 824-839
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Natriuretic peptide (NP) levels (B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP) are now widely used in clinical practice and cardiovascular research throughout the world and have been incorporated into most national and international cardiovascular guidelines for heart failure. The role of NP levels in state-of-the-art clinical practice is evolving rapidly. This paper reviews and highlights ten key messages to clinicians:•NP levels are quantitative plasma biomarkers of heart failure (HF).•NP levels are accurate in the diagnosis of HF.•NP levels may help risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with regard to the need for hospital admission or direct ED discharge.•NP levels help improve patient management and reduce total treatment costs in patients with acute dyspnoea.•NP levels at the time of admission are powerful predictors of outcome in predicting death and re-hospitalisation in HF patients.•NP levels at discharge aid in risk stratification of the HF patient.•NP-guided therapy may improve morbidity and/or mortality in chronic HF.•The combination of NP levels together with symptoms, signs and weight gain assists in the assessment of clinical decompensation in HF.•NP levels can accelerate accurate diagnosis of heart failure presenting in primary care.•NP levels may be helpful to screen for asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction in high-risk patients.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wikström, Gerhard, et al.
(författare)
-
The effects of aetiology on outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy in the CARE-HF trial
- 2009
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 30:7, s. 782-788
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Cardiac dyssynchrony is common in patients with heart failure, whether or not they have ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The effect of the underlying cause of cardiac dysfunction on the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown. This issue was addressed using data from the CARE-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 813) were grouped by heart failure aetiology (IHD n = 339 vs. non-IHD n = 473), and the primary composite (all-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) and principal secondary (all-cause mortality) endpoints analysed. Heart failure severity and the degree of dyssynchrony were compared between the groups by analysing baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables. Patients with IHD were more likely to be in NYHA class IV (7.5 vs. 4.0%; P = 0.03) and to have higher NT-proBNP levels (2182 vs. 1725 pg/L), indicating more advanced heart failure. The degree of dyssynchrony was more pronounced in patients without IHD (assessed using mean QRS duration, interventricular mechanical delay, and aorta-pulmonary pre-ejection time). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume improved to a lesser extent in the IHD group (4.53 vs. 8.50% and -35.68 vs. -58.52 cm(3)). Despite these differences, CRT improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar extent in patients with or without IHD. CONCLUSION: The benefits of CRT in patients with or without IHD were similar in relative terms in the CARE-HF study but as patients with IHD had a worse prognosis, the benefit in absolute terms may be greater.
|
|
