| 41. |
- Inglis, S. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Intermittent claudication as a predictor of outcome in patients with ischaemic systolic heart failure: analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure trial (CORONA)
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 12:7, s. 698-705
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To examine the relationship between baseline intermittent claudication and outcomes in patients enrolled in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure trial (CORONA). Intermittent claudication is an independent predictor of worse outcome in coronary heart disease, but its prognostic importance in heart failure (HF) is unknown. Patients aged >or=60 years with NYHA class II-IV, low ejection fraction HF of ischaemic aetiology were enrolled in CORONA. Rosuvastatin did not reduce the primary outcome or all-cause mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: To determine whether intermittent claudication was an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, a three-step multivariable model was built: (i) demographic/clinical variables, (ii) biochemical measures added, (iii) high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic-peptide added. Of the 5011 patients, 637 (12.7%) had intermittent claudication at baseline. Patients with intermittent claudication were more likely to be male (83 vs. 75%), be a current smoker (19 vs. 9%), and have diabetes mellitus (36 vs. 29%) relative to those without intermittent claudication. Over a median 33-month follow-up, 2168 patients died or were hospitalized for HF. Patients with intermittent claudication had an increased risk of death (any cause) (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.19-1.56, P < 0.0001), death from worsening HF (1.35, 1.03-1.77, P = 0.028), sudden death (1.24, 1.00-1.54, P = 0.05), and risk of non-fatal or fatal myocardial infarction (time to first event 1.67, 1.24-2.27, P < 0.001). In the full multivariable model, intermittent claudication remained an independent predictor of most outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSION: Intermittent claudication is a relatively common symptom in ischaemic HF and an independent predictor of worse outcome. Clinical Trial Registration Information: NCT00206310-http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00206310?term=corona&ran k=2.
|
|
| 42. |
- Kitai, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Insufficient reduction in heart rate during hospitalization despite beta-blocker treatment in acute decompensated heart failure: insights from the ASCEND-HF trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 19:2, s. 241-249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Heart failure (HF) can be associated with a higher resting heart rate (HR), and an elevated HR is associated with adverse long-term events. However, the mechanistic and causal role of HR in HF is unclear. This study aimed to investigate changes in HR during hospitalization, and the association between discharge HR and clinical outcomes as well as an interaction with beta-blocker therapy in patients with acute decompensated HF (ADHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 2906 patients with an LVEF /=70 b.p.m. at baseline and 1580 (54.4%) patients were on beta-blocker treatment. Although HR was gradually reduced from baseline to discharge (85.5 +/- 15.9 b.p.m. at baseline, 81.7 +/- 14.1 b.p.m. at 24 h from treatment initiation, and 79.1 +/- 12.2 b.p.m. at discharge), 80.2% of the patients still had a HR >/=70 b.p.m. at discharge. Patients with a HR >/=70 b.p.m. at discharge had significantly lower survival rates than those with a HR <70 b.p.m. (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.04, P = 0.002). Moreover, HR at discharge had a curvilinear association with mortality, and had no significant interaction effect with beta-blocker therapy at discharge (P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Despite current beta-blocker therapy, many patients with hospitalized ADHF with reduced LVEF have relatively high discharge HR, and discharge HR is associated with higher mortality. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal strategy for HR control to improve outcomes.
|
|
| 43. |
- Kober, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Previously known and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: a major risk indicator after a myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction
- 2006
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - 1388-9842. ; 8:6, s. 591-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To characterize the relationship between known and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and the risk of death and major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). METHODS: The VALIANT trial enrolled 14,703 individuals with acute MI complicated by HF and/or LVSD. AF was assessed at presentation and at randomization (median 4.9 days after symptom onset). Primary outcomes were risk of death and major CV events 3 years following acute MI. RESULTS: A total of 1812 with current AF (AF between presentation and randomization), 339 patients with prior AF (history of AF without current AF), and 12,509 without AF were enrolled. Patients with AF were older; had more prior HF, angina, and MI, and received beta-blockers and thrombolytics less often than those without AF. Three-year mortality estimates were 20% in those without AF, 37% with current AF, and 38% with prior AF. Compared with patients without AF, the multivariable adjusted HR of death was 1.25 (1.03-1.52; p=0.03) for prior AF and 1.32 (1.20-1.45; p<0.0001) for current AF. HR for major CV events was 1.15 (0.98-1.35; p=0.08) and 1.21 (1.12-1.31; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: AF is associated with greater long-term mortality and adverse CV events with acute MI complicated by HF or LVSD.
|
|
| 44. |
- Lewis, E. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM
- 2007
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 9:1, s. 83-91
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: 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. AIMS: The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (
|
|
| 45. |
- Mann, D. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Targeted anticytokine therapy in patients with chronic heart failure: results of the Randomized Etanercept Worldwide Evaluation (RENEWAL)
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 109:13, s. 1594-602
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Studies in experimental models and preliminary clinical experience suggested a possible therapeutic role for the soluble tumor necrosis factor antagonist etanercept in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.30 were enrolled in 2 clinical trials that differed only in the doses of etanercept used. In RECOVER, patients received placebo (n=373) or subcutaneous etanercept in doses of 25 mg every week (n=375) or 25 mg twice per week (n=375). In RENAISSANCE, patients received placebo (n=309), etanercept 25 mg twice per week (n=308), or etanercept 25 mg 3 times per week (n=308). The primary end point of each individual trial was clinical status at 24 weeks. Analysis of the effect of the 2 higher doses of etanercept on the combined outcome of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure from the 2 studies was also planned (RENEWAL). On the basis of prespecified stopping rules, both trials were terminated prematurely owing to lack of benefit. Etanercept had no effect on clinical status in RENAISSANCE (P=0.17) or RECOVER (P=0.34) and had no effect on the death or chronic heart failure hospitalization end point in RENEWAL (etanercept to placebo relative risk=1.1, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33, P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: The results of RENEWAL rule out a clinically relevant benefit of etanercept on the rate of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure.
|
|
| 46. |
- McDowell, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - 1388-9842. ; 25:8, s. 1406-1414
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure. Methods and results Aldosterone, cystatin C, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), kidney injury molecule-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity-2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM-HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT-HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 +/- 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow-up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs-TnT, GDF-15, cystatin C and TIMP-1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT-HF models, only hs-TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF-15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP-1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification. Conclusions None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables.
|
|
| 47. |
- McMurray, J. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship of dose of background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to the benefits of candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial
- 2006
-
Ingår i: American heart journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6744 .- 0002-8703. ; 151:5, s. 985-91
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Whether an angiotensin receptor blocker is of benefit when added to a full dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS: The effect of candesartan, compared with placebo, in 2548 patients randomized in the CHARM-Added trial was analyzed according to (i) ACE inhibitor dose at baseline, (ii) ACE inhibitor dose during follow-up, and (iii) combination treatment with ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker at baseline. The main outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: The benefit of candesartan was not modified by the dose of ACE inhibitor. In all patients (n = 2548), the candesartan/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96). In patients taking a guideline recommended dose of ACE inhibitor at baseline (n = 1291), this HR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.95; interaction P value .26). In patients taking a Food and Drug Administration-designated maximum dose of ACE inhibitor (n = 529), this HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.57-0.98; interaction P value .29). The benefit of candesartan was preserved in patients taking beta-blockers in addition to a higher dose of ACE inhibitor and in patients maintaining a high dose of ACE inhibitor throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical findings support the pharmacologic evidence that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have distinct mechanisms of action and show that their combined use improves outcomes in patients with HF more than an evidence-based dose of ACE inhibitor alone.
|
|
| 48. |
- McMurray, J. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Resource utilization and costs in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme
- 2006
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 27:12, s. 1447-58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: More treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF). It is, however, important that treatments for a condition as common as HF are affordable. We have carried out a prospective economic analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with NYHA class II-IV HF and LVEF < or =0.40 were randomized to CHARM-Alternative if intolerant of an ACE-inhibitor or to CHARM-Added if taking an ACE-inhibitor. Patients with a LVEF >0.40 were randomized in CHARM-Preserved. Each trial compared the effect of candesartan to placebo on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Detailed information was prospectively collected on hospital admissions, procedures/operations and drugs. A cost-consequence analysis was performed for France, Germany and the UK for CHARM-Overall and a cost-effectiveness analysis for the low LVEF trials. The cost of candesartan was substantially offset by a reduction in hospital admissions, especially for HF. In the cost-consequence analysis, candesartan was cost-saving in most scenarios for CHARM-Alternative and Added but the marginal annual net cost per patient was upto 372 euros per year in CHARM-Preserved, in which candesartan did not reduce the primary outcome significantly. In the cost-effectiveness analysis of patients with a LVEF < or = 0.40, candesartan was cost-saving in some scenarios and in the others the maximum cost per life year gained was 3881 euros. CONCLUSION: Candesartan improves functional class, reduces the risk of hospital admission, and increases survival in patients with a HF and a LVEF < or =0.40 at an acceptable cost.
|
|
| 49. |
- McMurray, J. J. V., et al.
(författare)
-
Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 371:11, s. 993-1004
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P = 0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure.
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
