| 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. |
- Kotecha, Dipak, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Renal Impairment on Beta-Blocker Efficacy in Patients With Heart Failure.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 74:23, s. 2893-2904
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of life-saving therapy.This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was performed. The authors report all-cause mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by heart rhythm.Median eGFR at baseline was 63 (interquartile range: 50 to 77) ml/min/1.73 m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10% to 15%; p < 0.001). In 13,861 patients in sinus rhythm, beta-blockers reduced mortality versus placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 for eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.001). The authors observed no deterioration in renal function over time in patients with moderate or moderately severe renal impairment, no difference in adverse events comparing beta-blockers with placebo, and higher mortality in patients with worsening renal function on follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2) to draw conclusions. In 2,879 patients with atrial fibrillation, there was no reduction in mortality with beta-blockers at any level of eGFR.Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and sinus rhythm should receive beta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Badar, A. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship between angina pectoris and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA)
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 35:48, s. 3426-3433
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim Angina pectoris is common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) but its relationship with outcomes has not been well defined. This relationship was investigated further in a retrospective analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA). Methods and results Four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-eight patients were divided into three categories: no history of angina and no chest pain at baseline (Group A; n = 1240), past history of angina but no chest pain at baseline (Group B; n = 1353) and both a history of angina and chest pain at baseline (Group C; n = 2285). Outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analysis. Compared with Group A, Group C had a higher risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction or unstable angina (HR: 2.36, 1.54-3.61; P<0.001), this composite plus coronary revascularization (HR: 2.54, 1.76-3.68; P<0.001), as well as HF hospitalization (HR: 1.35, 1.13-1.63; P = 0.001), over a median follow-up period of 33 months. There was no difference in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Group B had a smaller increase in risk of coronary events but not of heart failure hospitalization. Conclusion Patients with HF-REF and ongoing angina are at an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome and HF hospitalization. Whether these patients would benefit from more aggressive medical therapy or percutaneous revascularization is not known and merits further investigation.
|
|
| 6. |
- Cleland, J. G. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:1, s. 26-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF >= 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 >= 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF >= 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF >= 50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conculations Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kotecha, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Heart Rate and Rhythm and the Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 69:24, s. 2885-2896
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES This analysis explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo. METHODS The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization. RESULTS A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 8. |
- Kristensen, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of outcomes after hospitalization for worsening heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced and preserved ejection fraction
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 17:2, s. 169-176
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimsTo investigate the prognostic significance of hospitalization for worsening heart failure (WHF), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Methods and resultsWe studied 5011 patients with HF and reduced EF (HF-REF) in the CORONA trial and 4128 patients with HF and preserved EF (HF-PEF) in the I-Preserve trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for death were estimated for 0-30 days and 31 days after first post-randomization WHF, MI, or stroke used as a time-dependent variable, compared with patients with none of these events. In CORONA, 1616 patients (32%) had post-randomization first events (1223 WHF, 216 MI, 177 stroke), and the adjusted HR for mortality 30 days after an event was: WHF 7.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-25.40], MI 23.08 (95% CI 6.44-82.71), and stroke 32.15 (95% CI 8.93-115.83). The HR for mortality at >30 days was: WHF 3.62 (95% CI 3.11-4.21), MI 4.41 (95% CI 3.23-6.02), and stroke 3.19 (95% CI 2.21-4.61). In I-Preserve, 896 patients (22%) experienced a post-randomization event (638 WHF, 111 MI, 147 stroke). The HR for mortality 30 days was WHF 31.77 (95% CI 7.60-132.81), MI 154.77 (95% CI 34.21-700.17), and stroke 223.30 (95% CI 51.42-969.78); for >30 days it was WHF 3.36 (95% CI 2.79-4.05), MI 3.29 (95% CI 2.14-5.06), and stroke 5.13 (95% CI 3.61-7.29). ConclusionsIn patients with both HF-REF and HF-PEF, hospitalization for WHF was associated with high early and late mortality. The early relative risk of death was not as great as following MI or stroke, but the longer term relative risk of death was similar following all three types of event. Numerically, more deaths occurred following WHF because it was a much more common event.
|
|
