Effect of beta 1 blockade with atenolol on progression of heart failure in patients pretreated with high-dose enalapril

Identification of predictive factors interacting with heart rate reduction for potential beneficial clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

•

We used Bayesian statistics to illustrate factors that affect HR reduction therapy.

•

HR-reducing therapy was associated with significant reductions in risk.

•

Presence of comorbid T2DM significantly affected mortality risk.

Background

There is an absence of clinical evidence on what factors modify the effect of heart rate (HR)-reducing treatment on mortality and morbidity in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify predictive factors that interact with HR-reducing therapy.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials that enrolled symptomatic HFrEF patients. The primary objective was to evaluate how different predictive factors modify the efficacy of HR-reducing therapy on clinical outcomes. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of subgroups stratified by a HR reduction threshold of 10 bpm.

Results

Data from 20 studies were synthesized and HR-reducing therapy was responsible for 16.7 %, 16.4 %, and 21.1 % risk reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV)-related mortality, and rehospitalization due to worsening HF (WHF), respectively. Empirical Bayes meta-regression showed that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) significantly modified the efficacy of HR-reducing therapy on all-cause mortality (slope = 0.012 in log risk ratio (RR) per 1 %-unit [95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.004, 0.021]) and CV-related mortality (0.01 in log RR per 1 %-unit [95 % CrI 0.0003, 0.0200]). There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-regression when stratifying by a HR reduction threshold of 10 bpm; however, when including all studies, we observed a significant effect modification for rehospitalization due to WHF (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis focused on the central tenet of HR-reducing therapy and revealed that T2DM is a predictor of HR-reducing treatment effect on all-cause mortality and CV-related mortality in HFrEF patients.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Beta-blockers in hypertension: overview and meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses from randomized outcome-based trials have challenged the role of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, because they often include trials on diseases other than hypertension, the role of these drugs in the choice of the blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment strategies remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared beta-blockers vs. placebo/no-treatment/less-intense treatment (BP-lowering trials) or beta-blockers vs. other antihypertensive agents in patients with or without hypertension (comparison trials). Among BP-lowering trials and according to baseline comorbidity, we separately considered trials in hypertension, trials without chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction, and trials with either chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated (random-effects model) for BP-lowering or comparison trials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 BP-lowering or comparison trials (165 850 patients) were eligible. In 67 BP-lowering trials (68 478 patients; mean follow-up 2.5 years; baseline SBP/DBP, 136/82 mmHg), beta blockers were associated with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events [risk ratio 0.85 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.78-0.92] and all-cause death (risk ratio 0.81 and 95% CI 0.75-0.86). Restriction of the analysis to five trials recruiting exclusively hypertensive patients (18 724 patients; mean follow-up 5.1 years; baseline SBP/DBP 163/94 mmHg), a -10.5/-7.0 mmHg BP decrease was accompanied by reduction of major cardiovascular events by 22% (95% CI, 6-34). In 24 comparison trials (103 764 patients, 3.92 years of mean follow-up), beta-blockers compared with other agents were less protective for stroke and all-cause death in all trials and in trials conducted exclusively in hypertensive patients (averaged risk ratio increase 20 and 6%, respectively, for both cases).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other antihypertensive agents, beta-blockers appear to be substantially less protective against stroke and overall mortality. However, they exhibit a substantial risk-reducing ability for all events when prescribed to lower BP in patients with modest or more clear BP elevations, and therefore can be used as additional agents in hypertensive patients.

Systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and outcomes in patients with coronary disease and heart failure

Aims

Data regarding the optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) for coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with hypertension and a history of heart failure (HF) are limited. Accordingly, using data from a large clinical trial, we investigated the association between SBP and heart rate and subsequent adverse outcomes in CAD patients with a history of HF, and we aimed to better understand how pre‐existing HF impacts outcomes among patients with CAD.

Methods and results

Among 22 576 CAD patients enrolled in the INternational VErapamil SR‐Trandolapril STudy (INVEST), 1256 were identified with a history of physician‐diagnosed HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class 1–3 at entry. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Cox proportional‐hazards models adjusted for pre‐specified covariates were constructed to estimate risk among the HF cohort compared with a case‐matched sample from the non‐HF cohort. At a mean 2.5 years' follow‐up, those with prior HF had a higher risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval 2.30–2.83, P < 0.0001). Among those with history of HF, a low (<120 mmHg) or high (>140 mmHg) SBP and heart rate ≥ 85 b.p.m. were associated with increased risk for adverse outcomes, which persisted after covariate adjustment.

Conclusions

In patients with CAD, a physician diagnosis of HF at baseline portended a higher risk for death, MI, or stroke than in those without an HF history. Achieving SBP of 120–140 mmHg and heart rate < 85 b.p.m. was associated with a better outcome in patients with known HF and CAD.

Efficacy of Pharmacologic and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapies in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm-based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

Are patients in heart failure trials representative of primary care populations? A systematic review

Background

Guidelines recommend drug treatment for patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), however the evidence for benefit in patients with mild disease, such as most in primary care, is uncertain. Importantly, drugs commonly used in heart failure account for one in seven of emergency admissions for adverse drug reactions.

Aim

To determine to what extent patients included in studies of heart failure treatment with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists were representative of a typical primary care population with HFrEF in England.

Design & setting

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drug treatment in patients with HFrEF.

Method

MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to March 2015. The characteristics of the patient’s New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification were compared with a primary care reference population with HFrEF.

Results

Of the 30 studies included, two had incomplete data. None had a close match (defined as ≤10% deviation from reference study) for NYHA class I disease; 5/28 were a close match for NYHA class II; 5/28 for NYHA class III; and 18/28 for NYHA class IV. In general, pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, risk factors, and comorbidities were representative of the reference population.

Conclusion

Patients recruited to studies typically had more severe heart failure than the reference primary care population. When evidence from sicker patients is generalised to less sick people, there is increased uncertainty about benefit and also a risk of harm from overtreatment. More evidence is needed on the effectiveness of treatment of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with NYHA class I.

Impact of Beta-Blocker Initiation Timing on Mortality Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Relevant clinical studies have been small and have not convincingly demonstrated whether the perioperative initiation of beta-blockers should be considered in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this nationwide propensity score-matched study, we included patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing noncardiac surgery between 2000 and 2011 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients were classified as beta-blocker and non-beta-blocker cohorts. We further stratified beta-blocker users into cardioprotective beta-blocker (atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, or carvedilol) and other beta-blocker users. To investigate time of initiation of beta-blocker use, initiation time was stratified into 2 periods (>30 and ≤30 days preoperatively). The outcomes of interest were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. After propensity score matching, we identified 50 952 beta-blocker users and 50 952 matched controls. Compared with non-beta-blocker users, cardioprotective beta-blocker users were associated with lower risks of in-hospital (odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) and 30-day (odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81) mortality. Among initiation times, only the use of cardioprotective beta-blockers for >30 days was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital (odds ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.78) and 30-day (odds ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.78) mortality. Of note, use of other beta-blockers for ≤30 days before surgery was associated with increased risk of both in-hospital and 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of cardioprotective beta-blockers for >30 days before surgery was associated with reduced mortality risk, whereas short-term use of beta-blockers was not associated with differences in mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), β-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 57 randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2015, which were compared in terms of study and patient characteristics, baseline risk, outcome definitions, and the observed treatment effects. Despite differences identified in terms of study duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a network meta-analysis was considered feasible and all trials were analyzed simultaneously. The random-effects network meta-analysis suggested that the combination of ACEI+BB+MRA was associated with a 56% reduction in mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% credible interval 0.26-0.66); ARNI+BB+MRA was associated with the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.19-0.65). A sensitivity analysis that did not account for background therapy suggested that ARNI monotherapy is more efficacious than ACEI or ARB monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis showed that treatment with ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, and ARNI and their combinations were better than the treatment with placebo in reducing all-cause mortality, with the exception of ARB monotherapy and ARB plus ACEI. The combination of ARNI+BB+MRA resulted in the greatest mortality reduction.

A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the mainstay prognostic medication for all stages of chronic heart failure (CHF). There are many classes of BBs, each of which has varying levels of evidence to support its efficacy in CHF. However, most CHF patients have one or more comorbid conditions such as diabetes, renal impairment, and/or atrial fibrillation. Patient enrollment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often excludes those with certain comorbidities, particularly if the symptoms are severe. Consequently, the extent to which evidence drawn from RCTs is generalizable to CHF patients has not been well described. Clinical guidelines also underrepresent this point by providing generic advice for all patients. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence to support the use of BBs in CHF patients with common comorbid conditions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and the reference lists of reviews for RCTs, post hoc analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that report on use of BBs in CHF along with patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies from 28 RCTs were identified, which provided data on six BBs against placebo or head to head with another BB agent in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Several studies explored BBs in older patients. Female patients and non-Caucasian race were underrepresented in trials. End points were cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Comorbid diabetes, renal impairment, or atrial fibrillation was detailed; however, no reference to disease spectrum or management goals as a focus could be seen in any of the studies. In this sense, enrollment may have limited more severe grades of these comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs provide authoritative information for a spectrum of CHF presentations that support guidelines. RCTs may provide inadequate information for more heterogeneous CHF patient cohorts. Greater Phase IV research may be needed to fill this gap and inform guidelines for a more global patient population.

A meta-analysis of the effects of β-adrenergic blockers in chronic heart failure

Adrenergic β-blockers are drugs that bind to, but do not activate β-adrenergic receptors. Instead they block the actions of β-adrenergic agonists and are used for the treatment of various diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, hypertension, headache, migraines, stress, anxiety, prostate cancer, and heart failure. Several meta-analysis studies have shown that β-blockers improve the heart function and reduce the risks of cardiovascular events, rate of mortality, and sudden death through chronic heart failure (CHF) of patients. The present study identified results from recent meta-analyses of β-adrenergic blockers and their usefulness in CHF. Databases including Medline/Embase/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed were searched for the periods May, 1985 to March, 2011 and June, 2013 to August, 2015, and a number of studies identified. Results of those studies showed that use of β-blockers was associated with decreased sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure. However, contradictory results have also been reported. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of β-blockers on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. The results showed that mortality was significantly reduced by β-blocker treatment prior to the surgery of heart failure patients. The results from the meta-analysis studies showed that β-blocker treatment in heart failure patients correlated with a significant decrease in long-term mortality, even in patients that meet one or more exclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF study. In summary, the findings of the current meta-analysis revealed beneficial effects different β-blockers have on patients with heart failure or related heart disease.

Managing comorbidities in patients with chronic heart failure: first, do no harm

Heart failure (HF) affects approximately 5.1 million adults in the USA, with expectations of a rise to nearly 8 million adults by 2030. Patients with HF are at increased risk for morbidity/mortality, and comorbidities can further complicate care for these patients. Diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, arrhythmias, and depression are diagnoses that often coexist with HF. Medications commonly used to treat these comorbidities may induce or worsen HF symptoms, so determining appropriate drug therapy is important. Healthcare providers must understand the relationship between these medications and HF in order to improve prescribing practices to increase patient safety and reduce morbidity and mortality. This manuscript discusses the association between certain medications used to treat the aforementioned diagnoses and their relationship to HF. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance on which pharmacologic options require special consideration, increased monitoring, or complete avoidance in HF patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, arrhythmias, and/or depression.

β-Blockers in hypertension, diabetes, heart failure and acute myocardial infarction: a review of the literature

β-Blockers (BBs) are an essential class of cardiovascular medications for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). However, a large body of data indicates that BBs should not be used as first-line therapy for hypertension (HTN). Additionally, new data have questioned the role of BBs in the treatment of stable coronary heart disease (CHD). However, these trials mainly tested the non-vasodilating β₁ selective BBs (atenolol and metoprolol) which are still the most commonly prescribed BBs in the USA. Newer generation BBs, such as the vasodilating BBs carvedilol and nebivolol, have been shown not only to be better tolerated than non-vasodilating BBs, but also these agents do not increase the risk of diabetes mellitus (DM), atherogenic dyslipidaemia or weight gain. Moreover, carvedilol has the most evidence for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HF and those who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This review discusses the cornerstone clinical trials that have tested BBs in the settings of HTN, HF and AMI. Large randomised trials in the settings of HTN, DM and stable CHD are still needed to establish the role of BBs in these diseases, as well as to determine whether vasodilating BBs are exempt from the disadvantages of non-vasodilating BBs.

β-Blockers for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In many studies, beta-blockers have been shown to decrease sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure patients; other studies reported mixed results. Recently, several large randomized control trials of beta blockers have been carried out. It became necessary to conduct a systematic review to provide an up-to-date synthesis of available data.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials examining the use of beta-blockers vs. placebo/control for the prevention of SCD in heart failure patients. We identified 30 trials, which randomized 24,779 patients to beta-blocker or placebo/control. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials and provide information on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients. Additional inclusion criteria included: treatment for >30 days and follow-up ≥ 3 months. Studies of patients <18 years, randomization to beta-blocker vs. an angiotensin converting enzyme (without placebo) and/or beta-blocker in both arms were excluded from the analysis. Pre-specified outcomes of interest included SCD, cardiovascular death (CVD), and all-cause mortality and were analyzed according to intention-to-treat.

Results

We found that beta-blockers are effective in the prevention of SCD [OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62–0.77, P < 0.00001], cardiovascular death (CVD) [OR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64–0.79, P < 0.00001], and all-cause mortality [OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59–0.76, P < 0.00001]. Based on the study analysis, 43 patients must be treated with a beta-blocker to prevent one SCD, 26 patients to prevent one CVD and 21 patients to prevent all-cause mortality in one year.

Conclusion

Beta-blockers reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by 31%, cardiovascular death (CVD) by 29% and all-cause mortality by 33%. These results confirm the mortality benefits of these drugs and they should be recommended to all patients similar to those included in the trials.

Benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly due to a class effect.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of efficacy of different β blockers in heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL(1982-2011), Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2011), Embase (1980-2011), Medline/PubMed (1966-2011), and Web of Science (1965-2011).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials comparing β blockers with other β blockers or other treatments.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary endpoint was all cause death at the longest available follow-up, assessed with odds ratios and Bayesian random effect 95% credible intervals, with independent extraction by observers.

RESULTS

21 trials were included, focusing on atenolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and nebivolol. As expected, in the overall analysis, β blockers provided credible mortality benefits in comparison with placebo or standard treatment after a median of 12 months (odds ratio 0.69, 0.56 to 0.80). However, no obvious differences were found when comparing the different β blockers head to head for the risk of death, sudden cardiac death, death due to pump failure, or drug discontinuation. Accordingly, improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction were also similar irrespective of the individual study drug.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction seem to be mainly due to a class effect, as no statistical evidence from current trials supports the superiority of any single agent over the others.

Prognostic value of plasma midregional pro-adrenomedullin and C-terminal-pro-endothelin-1 in chronic heart failure outpatients

AIMS

The identification of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients at high risk of adverse outcome remains a challenge. New peptides are emerging that may give additional information. In CHF patients, endothelin (ET) levels predict mortality risk. Adrenomedullin has been shown to predict mortality in ischaemic heart failure, but not in unselected or non-ischaemic CHF patients. Moreover, ADM and ET have never been assessed in one model. The aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic value of midregional-pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and C-terminal-pro-endothelin-1 (CT-proET-1) in outpatients with CHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We measured plasma MR-proADM and CT-proET-1 levels in 786 consecutive CHF outpatients and compared them with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels. At 24-month follow-up, 233 patients had died. A stepwise forward Cox regression model with age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, NYHA > II, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), MR-proADM, CT-proET-1, and BNP as possible predictors revealed that MR-proADM levels [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.77, P < 0.001] in addition to age (HR = 1.02, P = 0.004), ejection fraction (HR = 0.98, P = 0.004), and NYHA > II (HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) were predictors of death at 24 months. When the analysis was repeated dependent on NYHA-stage, MR-proADM (HR = 2.12, P < 0.001) and LVEF (HR = 0.96, P = 0.006) were significant markers, but only in patients with mild/moderate CHF.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that MR-proADM may be an important prognostic humoral marker, especially in mild/moderately symptomatic and non-ischaemic CHF patients.

Atenolol is inferior to metoprolol in improving left ventricular function and preventing ventricular remodeling in dogs with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

beta-Blockers are standard therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). This study compared the effects of chronic monotherapy with 2 different beta(1)-selective adrenoceptor blockers, namely atenolol and metoprolol succinate, on left ventricular (LV) function and remodeling in dogs with coronary microembolization-induced HF [LV ejection fraction (EF) 30-40%].

METHODS

Twenty HF dogs were randomized to 3 months of therapy with atenolol (50 mg once daily, n = 6), metoprolol succinate (100 mg, once daily, n = 7) or to no therapy (control, n = 7). LV EF and volumes were measured before initiating therapy and after 3 months of therapy. The change (Delta) in EF and volumes between measurements before and after therapy was calculated and compared among study groups.

RESULTS

In controls, EF decreased and end-systolic volume increased. Atenolol prevented the decrease in EF and the increase in ESV. In contrast, metoprolol succinate significantly increased EF and decreased end-systolic volume. DeltaEF was significantly higher and Deltaend-systolic volume significantly lower in metoprolol succinate-treated dogs compared to atenolol-treated dogs (EF: 6.0 +/- 0.86% vs. 0.8 +/- 0.85%, p < 0.05; end-systolic volume: -4.3 +/- 0.81 ml vs. -1 +/- 0.52 ml, p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In HF dogs, chronic therapy with atenolol does not elicit the same LV function and remodeling benefits as those achieved with metoprolol succinate.

Interleukin-6 and B-type natriuretic peptide are independent predictors for worsening of heart failure in patients with progressive congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND

Neurohormones and cytokines have been associated with poor prognosis in patients with congestive heart failure. However, direct comparisons between them are rare and the best predictor for worsening of heart failure remains to be elucidated. The aim of the study was to identify independent predictors for worsening of heart failure.

METHODS

We studied 100 patients with congestive heart failure (LVEF <or=25%). Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, aminoterminal atrial natriuretic peptide (N-ANP), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), aminoterminal B-type natriuretic peptide (N-BNP), norepinephrine (NE) and big endothelin (big ET) were measured at entry into the study. Univariate and stepwise multivariate regression analyses were performed to compare variables and clinical parameters. The end-point was defined as worsening of heart failure.

RESULTS

During follow-up (mean 378 days), 30 patients reached the defined end-point. Univariate risk factors of worsening of heart failure were IL-6 (p = 0.0001), log BNP (p = 0.0001), log N-ANP (p = 0.0259), big ET (p = 0.0032), log N-BNP (p = 0.0495), NE (p = 0.0013) and LVEF (p = 0.0498). Multivariate regression analysis identified IL-6 as the strongest independent predictive value for worsening of heart failure (p = 0.0001), followed by log BNP (p = 0.0002). Mean IL-6 levels were 1.76 +/- 1.73 in stable patients and 4.62 +/- 7.98 pg/ml in patients who developed worsening of heart failure. Using a cut-off value of 1.66 pg/ml for IL-6 Kaplan-Meier freedom from worsening, heart failure was significantly higher in patients below this cut-off point compared with those above (p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

IL-6 and BNP independently predict worsening of heart failure. A single measurement could help to identify patients at high risk for worsening of heart failure and these individuals should be monitored more closely.

Beta-blockers for heart failure: why, which, when, and where

Beta-blockers are a highly effective treatment for patients with all grades of heart failure secondary to LV systolic dysfunction. Beta-blockers are best deployed as a form of tertiary prevention in heart failure but have a very limited role for the treatment of a heart failure crisis. Physicians and patients need to understand the time course of the effects of beta-blocker therapy. The initial effects are often neutral or adverse, though the benefits, at least of carvedilol, may be apparent within days in patients with severe heart failure. Benefits accumulate gradually over a period of weeks to months. Some patience, perseverance, and education are required in order to allow patients to reap the full benefits of beta-blocker therapy for this malignant disease. Initiation of treatment early in the course of the disease maximizes the effectiveness and acceptance of therapy. Trials are under way to determine whether the benefits of beta-blockers extend to patients over 80 years of age and to those with preserved LV systolic function. It is likely that important differences exist between beta-blockers in terms of their clinical benefit, though whether differences exist between the agents that have been reported to be effective so far awaits the outcome of a large clinical trial. It is unclear whether the target doses of beta-blockers currently recommended are optimal.

Use of thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy for the prediction of the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy

This study was performed to evaluate whether thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy (Tl-201) and iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy could predict the usefulness of beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Tl-201 and MIBG were performed in 47 patients before beta-blocker therapy. Patients were classified into group A, if their cardiac function improved, and group B, whose function remained unchanged. Two types of extent score (ES) by Tl-201 were proposed to quantitate myocardial damage, mean-2SD (ES-2) and mean-3SD (ES-3). The ES difference between ES-2 and ES-3 was calculated, and according to ES and ES difference, DCM cases were classified into 3 groups: mild-defect type (mild-type), moderate-defect type (moderate-type) and severe-defect type (severe-type). The heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) MIBG uptake ratio was evaluated, and the percent washout ratio of myocardial MIBG was obtained from these data. Group A comprised 18 mild-type, 14 moderate-type and 1 severe-type cases, and group B comprised 5 mild-type, 4 moderate-type and 5 severe-type cases. A significant relation was observed between the defect type on Tl-201 and the response to beta-blocker therapy (p=0.0090). Both H/M MIBG uptake ratios and washout ratio were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Tl-201 may be useful for predicting the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with DCM.

Atenolol improves ventricular function without changing plasma noradrenaline but decreasing plasma atrial natriuretic factor in chronic heart failure

1 There is good evidence that beta-blockers improve ventricular function, disease progression and survival in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of atenolol therapy on the sympathetic nervous system at rest and after ergometric exercise, on left ventricular function and on baseline plasma atrial natriuretic factor (ANF) in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). 2 Twenty-two patients [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <36%; New York Heart Association II-III] were studied before atenolol treatment. Because of cardiac events (new Hospital admission or death) only 13 patients completed 1 year of treatment. Baseline noradrenaline (NE) concentrations were similar in patients and controls while ANF was higher in patients than in controls (328 +/- 35 pg ml(-1) vs. 37 +/- 3 pg ml(-1); P<0.01). 3 Patients with events showed higher NE (540 +/- 87 pg ml(-1) vs. 303 +/- 44 pg ml(-1); P<0.01) and ANF (460 +/- 70 pg ml(-1) vs. 291 +/- 44 pg ml(-1); P<0.03) at rest; and greater NE response to exercise (2.003 +/- 525 pg ml(-1) vs. 694 +/- 121 pg ml(-1); P<0.005). Atenolol treatment improved LVEF (19.5 +/- 1.9% vs. 33 +/- 3.9%; P<0.001), increased exercise tolerance (9 +/- 3.2 min vs. 17 +/- 4.8 min; P<0.001) and decreased plasma ANF (292 +/- 42 pg ml(-1) vs. 133 +/- 35 pg ml(-1); P<0.01). 4 Reduced basal dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG)/NE ratio (3.4 +/- 0.46 vs. 4.3 +/- 0.35; P<0.01) was observed in patients compared with healthy volunteers. Atenolol increased DHPG plasma levels (1.398 +/- 129 pg ml(-1) vs. 913 +/- 86 pg ml(-1); P<0.005) but the DHPG/NE ratio during exercise was not modified after treatment, suggesting that re-uptake of released NE is not changed by beta-blocker treatment. 5 In conclusion, the fact that atenolol treatment improves ventricular dysfunction and clinical status without changing plasma NE levels in CHF patients, suggests that plasma NE is a poor surrogate measurement for cardiac sympathetic activity in this pathology. In addition, decrease in plasma ANF produced by atenolol treatment may reflect the improvement of ventricular function.

Long-term effect of atenolol on ejection fraction, symptoms, and exercise variables in patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction

AIMS

We recently reported a beneficial clinical effect of atenolol, a beta(1) selective adrenergic antagonist, in 100 ambulatory heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, <or=25%) who were receiving background therapy with 40 mg/day enalapril. In this sub-study, we investigated the effects of atenolol vs placebo on LVEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, workload, and peak oxygen consumption (Vo(2)).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 43 patients (23 receiving atenolol, 20 receiving placebo) who had similar entry characteristics. We evaluated LVEF once a year and evaluated workload, pVO(2), and NYHA class before and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Repeated measures of analysis of variance were used for comparison of serial measurements. After 2 years, both atenolol (18% +/- 5% vs 36% +/- 18%, p < 0.05) and placebo (18% +/- 5% vs 23% +/- 5%, p < 0.05) increased LVEF, with a more pronounced effect of atenolol (p = 0.02), which also changed NYHA class distribution more favorably over time (p < 0.05). Workload and peak Vo(2) increased after atenolol (110 +/- 47 vs 140 +/- 48 watts, p < 0.05, and 18 +/- 5 vs 21 +/- 5 ml/kg/min, p < 0.05) but not after placebo (100 +/- 35 vs 110 +/- 38 watts, p < 0.05, between groups and 17 +/- 4 vs 19 +/- 7 ml/kg/min, not significant, between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced heart failure who tolerate long-term atenolol vs placebo treatment added to high-dose enalapril for 2 years without cardiac events, systolic left ventricular function is markedly improved. These patients experience greater relief of symptoms and increased exercise tolerance.

Prognostic evaluation of neurohumoral plasma levels before and during beta-blocker therapy in advanced left ventricular dysfunction

OBJECTIVES

The study assessed the relative predictive potency of neurohumoral factors in patients with advanced left ventricular (LV) dysfunction during neurohumoral blocking therapy.

BACKGROUND

The course of heart failure is characterized by progressive LV deterioration associated with an increase in cardiac (natriuretic peptides) and predominantly extracardiac (norepinephrine, big endothelin [big ET]) hormone plasma levels.

METHODS

Plasma hormones were measured at baseline and months 3, 6, 12 and 24 in 91 patients with heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <25%) receiving 40 mg enalapril/day and double-blind atenolol (50 to 100 mg/day) or placebo. After the double-blind study phase, patients were followed up to four years. Stepwise multivariate regression analyses were performed with 10 variables (age, etiology, LVEF, symptom class, atenolol/placebo, norepinephrine, big ET, log aminoterminal atrial natriuretic peptide, log aminoterminal B-type natriuretic peptide [N-BNP] and log B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP]). During the study, the last values prior to patient death were used, and in survivors the last hormone level, New York Heart Association class and LVEF at month 24 were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients died from a cardiovascular cause during follow-up. At baseline, log BNP plasma level (x2 = 13.9, p = 0.0002), treatment allocation (x2 = 9.5, p = 0.002) and LVEF (x2 = 5.6, p = 0.017) were independently related to mortality. During the study, log BNP plasma level (x2 = 21.3, p = 0.0001) remained the strongest predictive marker, with LVEF (x2 = 11.2, p = 0.0008) log N-BNP plasma level (x2 = 8.9, p = 0.0027) and treatment allocation (x2 = 6.4, p = 0.0109) providing additional independent information.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced LV dysfunction receiving high-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blocker therapy BNP and N-BNP plasma levels are both independently related to mortality. This observation highlights the importance of these hormones and implies that they will likely emerge as a very useful blood test for detection of the progression of heart failure, even in the face of neurohumoral blocking therapy.

Overview of the results of recent beta blocker trials

Results of the studies published or reported within the last 2 years provide convincing evidence that beta-blockers can decrease mortality in patients with chronic symptomatic heart failure because of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS)-II and Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF) trials showed a 34% reduction in all-cause death with bisoprolol and metoprolol therapy in patients with class II-III heart failure. Data from Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS), with a 35% mortality reduction, extended this benefit to class IV patients treated with carvedilol who do not require intravenous diuretics or positive inotropes. Ongoing beta-blocker studies address new topics, such as treatment of older patients, in whom diastolic heart failure may be more common, and direct comparison of different drugs. Although the use of beta-blockers for heart failure tends to increase, implementation of the knowledge from the trials in clinical practice still remains a challenge.