Pulsatile hemodynamic effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM Program.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal large artery function and increased pulsatile load are exacerbated by excess angiotensin-II acting through the AT1 receptor and contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of chronic heart failure (CHF). AIMS: To evaluate effects of the AT1 receptor blocker candesartan (N = 30) or placebo (N = 34) on pulsatile hemodynamics in participants with CHF in the CHARM program. METHODS AND RESULTS: Noninvasive hemodynamics were assessed following 6 and 14 months of treatment and averaged. Using calibrated tonometry and aortic outflow Doppler, characteristic impedance was calculated as the ratio of the change in carotid pressure and aortic flow in early systole. Total arterial compliance was calculated by the diastolic area method. Brachial blood pressure, cardiac output and peripheral resistance did not differ between groups. Lower central pulse pressure in the candesartan group (57+/-20 vs. 67+/-17 mmHg, P = 0.043) was accompanied by lower characteristic impedance (200+/-78 vs. 240+/-74 dyne s/cm5, P = 0.039) and higher total arterial compliance (1.87+/-0.70 vs. 1.47+/-0.48 ml/mmHg, P = 0.008). Similar favorable differences were seen when analyses were stratified for ejection fraction (< or = 0.40 vs. >0.40) and baseline angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor use. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan has a favorable effect on large artery function in patients with chronic heart failure.

Pilot study to determine the impact of a multidisciplinary educational intervention in patients hospitalized with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) face challenges complying with multidrug regimens. OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of a compliance enhancing intervention on medication compliance and morbidity in HF. DESIGN: Patients were randomized to either usual care or an inhospital educational intervention delivered by a multidisciplinary team (Intervention). SETTING: Acute medical and surgical units at a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty four patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 40% requiring long-term medical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A validated HF-specific instrument provided a measure of knowledge. We characterized patients as noncompliant if pharmacy refill data suggested they had taken < or = 0.80 of their medication. We measured quality of life using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and the Short Form 36 and conducted a time to first event analysis of a composite end point including mortality, readmissions, and emergency department visits. RESULTS: The Intervention group showed higher knowledge scores at discharge and 1 year (P = .05). The risk of noncompliance in Intervention patients varied from 0.78 (95% CI 0.33-1.89) for ACE-I (13% Intervention, 17% Control) to 1.02 (0.49-2.12) for diuretics (23% Intervention, 23% Control). Quality of life improved in both groups over time; the only difference between groups favored the Intervention (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, P = .04). The composite end point occurred in 67% of control and 60% of Intervention patients (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.55-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: An inhospital educational intervention improved knowledge and, possibly, quality of life and may be useful as part of a comprehensive compliance enhancing strategy in patients with HF.

Improving the continuity of care following discharge of patients hospitalized with heart failure: is the discharge summary adequate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the adequacy of the discharge summary in reporting important investigative results and future management plans in patients hospitalized and discharged with a diagnosis of heart failure. DESIGN: During a six-month period, all patient charts were identified and reviewed in which heart failure had been the most responsible discharge diagnosis. Trained, independent chart reviewers recorded predefined key aspects of the typed and handwritten discharge summaries including measurement of left ventricular function, utilization of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), management of risk factors, and instructions for follow-up treatment and appointments. SETTING: Single centre, tertiary care teaching hospital. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and one patient charts meeting review criteria were identified. Eighty-two contained a typed (dictated) discharge summary and 82 contained a copy of a one-page preformatted but handwritten summary given to the patient at discharge with instructions to give to their primary care physician. Forty-one per cent of typed discharge summaries did not record any known evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Of patients with LVEF < or =40%, 34% were not prescribed an ACEI at time of discharge. Of these patients, a contraindication was documented in 26% but there was no documentation of a contraindication or reason in 24%. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy as the principal attributed cause of heart failure, 80% of discharge summaries had no specific instructions addressing modifiable risk factors. Follow-up instructions for family physician visits were not mentioned in 56% of typed discharge summaries. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial inadequacies exist in communicating to the community physician, at the time of discharge from an acute care teaching hospital, valuable patient management information of patients with heart failure. This may have implications for continuity of care and subsequent clinical outcomes.