| 1. |
- 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%.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.)
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lorgelly, Paula K, et al.
(författare)
-
An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1879-0844 .- 1388-9842. ; 12:1, s. 66-74
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10 mg rosuvastatin daily for older patients with systolic heart failure in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Study in Heart Failure (CORONA) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: This within trial analysis of CORONA used major cardiovascular (CV) events as the outcome measure. Resource use was valued and the costs of hospitalizations, procedures, and statin use compared. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as cost per major CV event avoided. There were significantly fewer major CV events in the rosuvastatin group compared with the placebo group (1.04 vs. 1.20 per patient; difference 0.164; 95% CI: 0.075-0.254, P < 0.001). The average cost of CV hospitalizations and procedures was significantly lower for those receiving rosuvastatin ( pound1531 vs. pound1769; difference pound238; 95% CI: pound73-403, P = 0.005); the additional cost of the statin resulted in significantly higher total costs for the rosuvastatin group ( pound1769 vs. pound2072; difference pound303; 95% CI: pound138-468, P < 0.001). Overall, rosuvastatin was found to cost pound1840 (95% CI: pound562-6028) per major CV event avoided. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis showed that a significant reduction in major CV events with rosuvastatin led to significantly reduced costs of CV hospitalizations and procedures. The reduction in associated costs for major CV events was found to offset partially (by 44%) the cost of rosuvastatin treatment in patients with systolic heart failure.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- McMurray, John J V, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of statin therapy according to plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA): a retrospective analysis.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 120:22, s. 2188-96
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: We examined whether the antiinflammatory action of statins may be of benefit in heart failure, a state characterized by inflammation in which low cholesterol is associated with worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 10 mg rosuvastatin daily with placebo in patients with ischemic systolic heart failure according to baseline high sensitivity-C reactive protein (hs-CRP) <2.0 mg/L (placebo, n=779; rosuvastatin, n=777) or > or = 2.0 mg/L (placebo, n=1694; rosuvastatin, n=1711). The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Baseline low-density lipoprotein was the same, and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein by 47% in both hs-CRP groups. Median hs-CRP was 1.10 mg/L in the lower and 5.60 mg/L in the higher hs-CRP group, with higher hs-CRP associated with worse outcomes. The change in hs-CRP with rosuvastatin from baseline to 3 months was -6% in the low hs-CRP group (27% with placebo) and -33.3% in the high hs-CRP group (-11.1% with placebo). In the high hs-CRP group, 548 placebo-treated (14.0 per 100 patient-years of follow-up) and 498 rosuvastatin-treated (12.2 per 100 patient-years of follow-up) patients had a primary end point (hazard ratio of placebo to rosuvastatin, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.98; P=0.024). In the low hs-CRP group, 175 placebo-treated (8.9 per 100 patient-years of follow-up) and 188 rosuvastatin-treated (9.8 per 100 patient-years of follow-up) patients experienced this outcome (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.34; P>0.2; P for interaction=0.062). The numbers of deaths were as follows: 581 placebo-treated (14.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up) and 532 rosuvastatin-treated (12.6 per 100 patient-years) patients in the high hs-CRP group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.00; P=0.050) and 170 placebo-treated (8.3 per 100 patient-years) and 192 rosuvastatin-treated (9.7 per 100 patient-years) patients in the low hs-CRP group (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.43; P=0.14; P for interaction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective hypothesis-generating study, we found a significant interaction between hs-CRP and the effect of rosuvastatin for most end points whereby rosuvastatin treatment was associated with better outcomes in patients with hs-CRP > or = 2.0 mg/L. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00206310.
|
|
