Clinical and neurohumoral differences between spirapril and captopril in mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure

Quality of life assessment in heart failure interventions: a 10-year (1996–2005) review

The increasing prevalence and poor prognosis associated with heart failure have prompted research to focus on improving quality of life (QoL) for heart failure patients. Research from 1996–2005 was systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that assessed QoL in heart failure. In 120 studies, 44 were medication trials; 19 surgical/procedural interventions; and 57 patient care/service delivery interventions. Studies were summarized in terms of aim, population, QoL measures used and QoL findings. Studies used 47 different measures of QoL-generic, health-related, condition-specific, domain-specific and utility measures. Most used a single QoL measure. In 87%, a condition specific QoL measure was used, with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire being the favoured assessment tool. The range of QoL measures in use poses challenges for development of cumulative knowledge. Although comparability across studies is important, this must be informed by the responsiveness of the instrument selected. As carried out in other cardiac groups, comparative evaluations of instrument responsiveness are needed in heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14:589-607 © 2007 The European Society of Cardiology

Prospective evaluation comparing the effects of enalapril and losartan in left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have compared angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with heart failure, but there are few data about the effect of these drugs regarding left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Fifty-two consecutive patients with first anterior wall myocardial infarction within 24 hours of evolution were randomized to receive enalapril (as much as 20 mg; mean, 14.6 mg), or losartan (as much as 50 mg; mean, 48 mg). Left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular volumes were analyzed in 2 serial radionuclide ventriculograpies, carried out within 4 days after the infarction (mean, 97.4 +/- 114.2 hours) and after 6 months (mean, 177.7 +/- 16.7 days). Ventriculographies were analyzed by a single blinded observer. Mainly because of the unexpected large SD values obtained, the power of the study to demonstrate equivalence between the groups was only 15.7%.

RESULTS

The differences obtained between the first and the second ventriculographies, for the enalapril and losartan groups, were: for left ventricular ejection fraction, -0.4% +/- 6.6% versus -1.1% +/- 5.9% (P =. 67; 95% CI, 2.77-4.23); for final systolic volume, 0.07 +/- 7.7 mL/m(2) versus -0.2 +/- 6.1mL/m(2) (P =. 85; 95% CI, -3.57-4.26); for final diastolic volume -0.7 +/- 12.1 mL/m(2) versus -3.6 - 9.9 mL/m(2) (P =. 34; 95% CI, -3.22-9.17).

CONCLUSION

This study, although underpowered, suggests that neither enalapril nor losartan was superior as compared with each other for left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction; however, powerful evidence of equivalence was not provided.

ACE inhibitors in heart failure--switching from enalapril to perindopril

Although ACE inhibitors have demonstrated their beneficial effects in heart failure, whether different agents may induce different benefits remains unclear. We designed an open, sequential, prospective study switching heart failure patients receiving enalapril to perindopril which has been reported to be longer acting and better tolerated. The objective of the study was to find out if clinical and functional status could be further improved by changing from enalapril 30 mg daily to a perindopril 4 mg daily. Assessments of clinical status, echocardiography and nuclear ventriculography were performed at baseline under enalapril (30 mg mean dose (b.i.d.)), then 6 and 12 months after the switch to perindopril (4 mg/day mean dose). Thirty-one patients were included (90% men, aged 56.5 +/- 11.8 years, mean radionuclide left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 22.4 +/- 8.5 %). After 6 months of treatment, NYHA functional class was significantly improved; the percentage of patients in class I increased to 57% after perindopril versus 20% at baseline (p < 0.001), and 50% of the total study population gained at least one NYHA class. After 12 months of treatment, 80% of the patients were in NYHA class I. Blood pressure decreased significantly with a good tolerance at 6 months and then remained stable. After 12 months of treatment, significant reductions of LV end-diastolic diameter (61.4 +/- 5.3 vs. 64.5 +/- 6.5 mm; p = 0.001) and LV mass index (143.3 +/- 21.5 vs. 164.2 +/- 40.2 g/m2; p < 0.001) were observed, reflecting a positive effect on the LV remodelling process. Despite some limitations, because it is of an open-label design with a small number of patients, our study found significant differences in clinical and objective parameters in heart failure patients switched from enalapril to perindopril. The prognostic significance of these findings remains to be investigated.

Augmented short- and long-term hemodynamic and hormonal effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker added to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure. Vasodilator Heart Failure Trial (V-HeFT) Study Group

BACKGROUND

ACE inhibitors may not adequately suppress deleterious levels of angiotensin II in patients with heart failure. An angiotensin receptor blocker added to an ACE inhibitor may exert additional beneficial effects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eighty-three symptomatic stable patients with chronic heart failure receiving long-term ACE inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with valsartan 80 mg BID, valsartan 160 mg BID, or placebo while receiving their usual ACE inhibitor therapy. Studies were performed before and after the first dose of the test drug and again after 4 weeks of therapy. A single dose of lisinopril was administered during study days to ensure sustained ACE inhibition. Compared with placebo, the first dose of valsartan 160 mg resulted in a significantly greater reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at 3, 4, and 8 hours and during the prespecified 4- to 8-hour interval after the dose and in systolic blood pressure at 2, 3, 6, 8, and 12 hours and 4 to 8 hours after the dose. A pressure reduction from valsartan 80 mg did not achieve statistical significance. After 4 weeks of therapy, net reductions in 0-hour trough pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (-4.3 mm Hg; P=0. 16), pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (-4.7 mm Hg; P=0.013), and systolic blood pressure (-6.8 mm Hg; P=0.013) were observed in the valsartan 160 mg group compared with placebo. After 4 weeks of therapy, plasma aldosterone was reduced by valsartan 80 mg BID (-52. 1 pg/mL; P=0.001) and 160 mg BID (-47.8 pg/mL; P<0.001) compared with placebo, and there was a trend for a reduction in plasma norepinephrine (-97 pg/mL; P=0.10). Seventy-four of the 83 patients completed the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologically active levels of angiotensin II persist during standard long-term ACE inhibitor therapy.

High- versus low-dose ACE inhibition in chronic heart failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of imidapril

OBJECTIVES

To determine dose-related clinical and neurohumoral effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), we conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of three doses (2.5 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg) of the long-acting ACE inhibitor imidapril.

BACKGROUND

The ACE inhibitors have become a cornerstone in the treatment of CHF, but whether high doses are more effective than low doses has not been fully elucidated, nor have the mechanisms involved in such a dose-related effect.

METHODS

In a parallel group comparison, the effects of three doses of imidapril were examined. We studied 244 patients with mild to moderate CHF (New York Heart Association class II-III: +/-80%/20%), who were stable on digoxin and diuretics. Patients were treated for 12 weeks, and the main end points were exercise capacity and plasma neurohormones.

RESULTS

At baseline, the four treatment groups were well-matched for demographic variables. Of the 244 patients, 25 dropped out: 3 patients died, and 9 developed progressive CHF (3/182 patients on imidapril vs. 6/62 patients on placebo, p < 0.05). Exercise time increased 45 s in the 10-mg group (p = 0.02 vs. placebo), but it did not significantly change in the 5-mg (+16 s), and 2.5-mg (+11 s) imidapril group, compared to placebo (+3 s). Physical working capacity also increased in a dose-related manner. Plasma brain and atrial natriuretic peptide decreased (p < 0.05 for linear trend), while (nor)epinephrine, aldosterone and endothelin were not significantly affected. Renin increased in a dose-related manner, but plasma ACE activity was suppressed similarly (+/-60%) on all three doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Already within 3 months after treatment initiation, high-dose ACE inhibition (with imidapril) is superior to low-dose. This is reflected by a more pronounced effect on exercise capacity and some of the neurohormones, but it does not appear to be related to the extent of suppression of plasma ACE.