Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients. METHODS: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival.

Newly diagnosed and previously known diabetes mellitus and 1-year outcomes of acute myocardial infarction: the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial.

BACKGROUND: A prior diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is associated with adverse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (MI), but the risk associated with a new diagnosis of diabetes in this setting has not been well defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the risk of death and major cardiovascular events associated with previously known and newly diagnosed diabetes by studying 14,703 patients with acute MI enrolled in the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial. Patients were grouped by diabetic status: previously known diabetes (insulin use or diagnosis of diabetes before MI, n=3400, 23%); newly diagnosed diabetes (use of diabetic therapy or diabetes diagnosed at randomization [median 4.9 d after infarction], but no known diabetes at presentation, n=580, 4%); or no diabetes (n=10,719). Patients with newly diagnosed diabetes were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than did patients with previously known diabetes. At 1 year after enrollment, patients with previously known and newly diagnosed diabetes had similarly increased adjusted risks of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 1.59 and HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.85, respectively) and cardiovascular events (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.48 and HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes mellitus, whether newly diagnosed or previously known, is associated with poorer long-term outcomes after MI in high-risk patients. The poor prognosis of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, despite having baseline characteristics similar to those of patients without diabetes, supports the idea that metabolic abnormalities contribute to their adverse outcomes.

VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial: baseline characteristics in context.

BACKGROUND: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial compared outcomes with: (1) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACEI) with the reference agent captopril; (2) angiotensin-receptor blockade (ARB) with valsartan; or (3) both in patients with heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after myocardial infarction (MI). AIMS: a goal of this active-control trial was to simulate conditions that would lead current practitioners to use ACEIs. Thus, we compared characteristics of VALIANT patients with those of patients in placebo-controlled trials that established ACEIs as standard treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected demographic, clinical, medication and imaging information from 14703 patients in 24 countries. This high-risk population was a median 65.8 years old, and 31.1% were female. Most (51.8%) showed imaging evidence of LVSD at enrollment. Most (72%) had Killip class>/=II HF. Patients received evidence-based therapies at rates similar to those of contemporary MI trials and at an improved rate compared with prior placebo-controlled ACEI trials. CONCLUSION: VALIANT represents the largest globally representative cohort enrolled with HF and/or LVSD after MI. Patients were similar to those in placebo-controlled ACEI trials while reflecting improvements in evidence-based care. With enrollment complete, VALIANT is poised to define the optimal strategy for renin-angiotensin system blockade after MI to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Inspiratory flow rates and volumes with the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler in asthmatic children and adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) through the formoterol (Foradil*) Aerolizer* in patients with mild, moderate and severe asthma. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PIFR and FIVC were assessed in 33 adults and 32 children using a spirometer alone (baseline), a spirometer with an adaptor, and a spirometer with an adaptor and the Aerolizer inhaler (placebo loaded). RESULTS: Of adult patients using the Aerolizer inhaler, 73% had PIFR values of >100 l/min and 91% had values of >60 l/min. PIFR in adults was reduced from a mean baseline of 283 l/min to 118 l/min through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler. Similarly, 75% of children using the Aerolizer inhaler had PIFR values >80 l/min and 91% had values of > 60 l/min. The mean PIFR in children was reduced from a baseline of 154 l/min to 100 l/min through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler. Only small mean decreases from baseline were observed in FIVC through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler: 8.4% in adults and 3.8% in children. FIVC values of > 2.0 litre were achieved in 82% of adults, and 81% of children achieved FIVC values of >1.5 litre. CONCLUSIONS: This study, albeit in a relatively small patient population, suggests that most children and adults with asthma can generate PIFRs of > 60 l/min and FIVCs of > 1.5 litre through the Aerolizer inhaler regardless of their disease severity. Such findings compare extremely favourably with other dry powder inhalers.

An international perspective on heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction complicating myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry.

AIMS: We analysed the contemporary incidence, outcomes, and predictors of heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) before discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The baseline presence of HF or LVSD, or its development during hospitalisation, increases short- and long-term risk after MI, yet its incidence, predictors, and outcomes have not been well described in a large, international, general MI population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The VALIANT registry included 5573 consecutive MI patients at 84 hospitals in nine countries from 1999 to 2001. A multivariable logistic survival model was constructed using baseline variables to determine the adjusted mortality risk for those with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Baseline variables were also tested for associations with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Of the 5566 patients analysed, 42% had HF and/or LVSD during hospitalisation. Their in-hospital mortality rate was 13.0% compared with 2.3% for those without HF and/or without LVSD. After adjustment for other baseline risk factors, in-hospital HF and/or LVSD carried a hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality of 4.12 (95% confidence interval: 3.08-5.56). Patients with HF and/or LVSD also had disproportionately higher rates of other cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: HF and/or LVSD is common in the general contemporary MI population and precedes 80.3% of all in-hospital deaths after MI. Survivors of early MI-associated HF and/or LVSD have more complications, longer hospitalisations, and are more likely to die during hospitalisation. Although baseline variables can identify MI patients at highest risk for HF and/or LVSD, such patients are less likely to receive indicated procedures and medical therapies.