SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(McMurray JJV) "

Sökning: WFRF:(McMurray JJV)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 53
  • [1]23456Nästa
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Ariti, C. A., et al. (författare)
  • Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: Insights from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program
  • 2011
  • Ingår i: American heart journal. - 1097-6744. ; 162:5, s. 900-6
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: Conventional composite outcomes in heart failure (HF) trials, for example, time to cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization, have recognized limitations. We propose an alternative outcome, days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), which incorporates mortality and all hospitalizations into a single measure. A refinement, the patient journey, also uses functional status (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class) measured during follow-up. The CHARM program is used to illustrate the methodology. METHODS: CHARM randomized 7,599 patients with symptomatic HF to placebo or candesartan, with median follow-up of 38 months. We related DAOH and percent DAOH (ie, percentage of time spent alive and out of hospital) to treatment using linear regression adjusting for follow-up time. RESULTS: Mean increase in DAOH for patients on candesartan versus placebo was 24.1 days (95% CI 9.8-38.3 days, P < .001). The corresponding mean increase in percent DAOH was 2.0% (95% CI 0.8%-3.1%, P < .001). These findings were dominated by reduced mortality (23 days) but enhanced by reduced time in hospital (1 day). Percent time spent in hospital because of HF was reduced by 0.10% (95% CI 0.04%-0.14%, P < .001). The patient journey analysis showed that patients in the candesartan group spent more follow-up time in NYHA classes I and II and less in NYHA class IV. CONCLUSIONS: Days alive and out of hospital, especially percent DAOH, provide a valuable tool for summarizing the overall absolute treatment effect on mortality and morbidity. In future HF trials, percent DAOH can provide a useful alternative perspective on the effects of treatment.
  •  
2.
  • Granger, Christopher B., et al. (författare)
  • Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
  • 2011
  • Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 365:11, s. 981-992
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Background Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. Methods In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. Results The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P=0.42). Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality.
  •  
3.
  • Hawkins, N. M., et al. (författare)
  • Prevalence and prognostic impact of bundle branch block in patients with heart failure: Evidence from the CHARM programme
  • 2007
  • Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - 1388-9842. ; 9:5, s. 510-7
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: Bundle branch block (BBB) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The prognostic implications in HF with preserved systolic function (HF-PSF) are less well understood. METHODS: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic HF to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. The relative risk conveyed by BBB relative to a normal electrocardiogram was examined. RESULTS: The prevalence of BBB was significantly lower in patients with preserved compared with reduced systolic function (CHARM-Preserved 14.4%, Alternative 29.6%, Added 30.5%), p<0.0001. Overall, the adjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.22-1.78), p<0.0001, reflecting increased risk in patients with reduced LVEF (1.72 [1.28-2.31], p=0.0003). The apparently more modest risk among patients with HF-PSF was significant in unadjusted (1.80 [1.37-2.37], p<0.0001) but not adjusted analysis (1.16 [0.88-1.54], p=0.2897). However, no formal statistical difference was observed between the two cohorts, and interpretation is limited by the unknown prevalence of left and right BBB morphologies in each. Comparing BBB presence with absence yielded qualitatively similar results. CONCLUSION: The simple clinical finding of BBB is a powerful independent predictor of worse clinical outcomes in patients with HF and reduced LVEF. It is less frequent, with a more modest predictive effect, in patients with preserved systolic function.
  •  
4.
  • Hawkins, N. M., et al. (författare)
  • Prevalence and prognostic implications of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in heart failure: evidence from the CHARM programme
  • 2007
  • Ingår i: Heart. - 1468-201X. ; 93:1, s. 59-64
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG LVH) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To determine the contemporary prevalence and prognostic implications of ECG LVH in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure with and without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND OUTCOME: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic heart failure to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. The relative risk (RR) conveyed by ECG LVH compared with a normal ECG was examined in a Cox model, adjusting for as many as 31 covariates of prognostic importance. RESULTS: The prevalence of ECG LVH was similar in all three CHARM trials (Alternative, 15.4%; Added, 17.1%; Preserved, 14.7%; Overall, 15.7%) despite a more frequent history of hypertension in CHARM-Preserved. ECG LVH was an independent predictor of worse prognosis in CHARM-Overall. RR for the primary outcome was 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.55, p = 0.018). The risk of secondary end points was also increased: cardiovascular death, 1.50 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.99, p = 0.005); hospitalisation due to heart failure, 1.19 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.50, p = 0.148); and composite major cardiovascular events, 1.35 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.62, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: ECG LVH is similarly prevalent in patients with symptomatic heart failure regardless of LVEF. The simple clinical finding of ECG LVH was an independent predictor of a worse clinical outcome in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure receiving extensive contemporary treatment. Candesartan had similar benefits in patients with and without ECG LVH.
  •  
5.
  • Lund, L. H., et al. (författare)
  • Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics, outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum
  • 2018
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 20:8, s. 1230-1239
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Aims We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40-49%]. Methods and results In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient-years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33-0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59-1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%. Conclusion Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF.
  •  
6.
  •  
7.
  • 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. - 1097-6744. ; 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.
  •  
8.
  • 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. - 0195-668X. ; 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.
  •  
9.
  • Meredith, P. A., et al. (författare)
  • Clinical outcomes according to baseline blood pressure in patients with a low ejection fraction in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Program
  • 2008
  • Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - 1558-3597. ; 52:24, s. 2000-7
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (or=141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (or=81 mm Hg). RESULTS: Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP.
  •  
10.
  • Pocock, S. J., et al. (författare)
  • Weight loss and mortality risk in patients with chronic heart failure in the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme
  • 2008
  • Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - 1522-9645. ; 29:21, s. 2641-50
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • AIMS: The curiosity that leanness is associated with poor survival in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) needs further insight by investigating the impact of weight loss on prognosis in a large sample of patients across a broad spectrum of both reduced and preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function. METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated the change in weight over 6 months in 6933 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, and its association with subsequent mortality (1435 deaths) over a median 32.9 months follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models to account for the impact of body mass index and other risk predictors. We then used time-updated Cox models to relate each patient's ongoing data on annual weight change to their mortality hazard. The percentage weight loss over 6 months had a highly significant monotonically increasing association with excess mortality, both for cardiovascular and for other causes of death. Patients with 5% or greater weight loss in 6 months had over a 50% increase in hazard compared with those with stable weight. Weight loss carried a particularly high risk in patients who were already lean at study entry. Findings were similar in the presence of dependent oedema, preserved or reduced LV ejection fraction, and treatment with candesartan, although weight loss was significantly less common on candesartan. The time-updated analyses revealed an even stronger link between weight loss and short-term risk of dying, i.e. risk increased more than four-fold for patients whose last recorded annual weight loss exceeded 10%. Weight gain had a more modestly increased short-term mortality risk. Weight loss accelerates in the year prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss and leanness are important predictors of poor prognosis in CHF. Being lean and losing weight is particularly bad. The detection of weight change, and particularly weight loss, should be considered as an adverse sign prompting further evaluation.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 53
  • [1]23456Nästa

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy