Loop diuretics, renal function and clinical outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIM: We aimed to study the relationships of loop diuretic dose with renal function and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Loop diuretic dose at baseline was recorded in patients included in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA). The relationship to change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and to the first occurrence of the composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization owing to HF was examined in propensity score matched cohorts. Of the 5011 patients, 2550, 745, and 449 were receiving >80 mg (high), 41-80 mg (medium) and ≤40 mg (low) of loop diuretics in furosemide equivalent daily dosages, respectively, which were used to assemble 229, 385, and 1045 pairs of propensity-matched high, medium, and low dose cohorts. Compared with matched no loop diuretic groups, eGFR declined 0.3 ± 0.2, 0.3 ± 0.3 and 1.2 ± 0.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) /year in the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups, respectively. Compared with matched no loop diuretic groups, hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence intervals) for outcome associated with low-, medium- and high-dose groups were 1.71 (1.41-2.06), 1.99 (1.50-2.64), and 2.94 (1.95-4.41), respectively. Higher loop diuretic dose was particularly associated with increased risk for hospitalization owing to HF: HR 4.80 (2.75-8.37), P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The use of loop diuretics was associated with a slightly greater rate of decline in eGFR, which did not vary significantly by diuretic dose.Loop diuretic dose was associated with higher risks of (CV) mortality and predominantly hospitalization owing to HF, which appeared to be higher among those receiving higher daily doses.

Risk of Stroke in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin in Multinational Trial Heart Failure (CORONA) and the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Insufficienza Cardiaca-Heart Failure (GISSI-HF) Trials.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to describe the incidence and predictors of stroke in patients who have heart failure without atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled 2 contemporary heart failure trials, the Controlled Rosuvastatin in Multinational Trial Heart Failure (CORONA) and the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Insufficienza cardiaca-Heart Failure trial (GISSI-HF). Of the 9585 total patients, 6054 did not have AF. Stroke occurred in 165 patients (4.7%) with AF and in 206 patients (3.4%) without AF (rates 16.8/1000 patient-years and 11.1/1000 patient-years, respectively). Using Cox proportional-hazards models, we identified the following independent predictors of stroke in patients without AF (ranked by χ(2) value): age (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.63 per 10 years), New York Heart Association class (1.60, 1.21-2.12 class III/IV versus II), diabetes mellitus treated with insulin (1.87, 1.22-2.88), body mass index (0.74, 0.60-0.91 per 5 kg/m(2) up to 30), and previous stroke (1.81, 1.19-2.74). N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (available in 2632 patients) was also an independent predictor of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.31; 1.11-1.57 per log unit) when added to this model. With the use of a risk score formulated from these predictors, we found that patients in the upper third of risk had a rate of stroke that approximated the risk in patients with AF. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of demographic and clinical variables identified a subset of patients who have heart failure without AF at a high risk of stroke.

Do statins reduce the risk of myocardial infarction in patients with heart failure? A pooled individual-level reanalysis of CORONA and GISSI-HF.

AIMS: Current guidelines do not explicitly recommend statin use in heart failure (HF). Relatively low numbers of atherothrombotic events among HF patients, in the context of their elevated competing risks for non-atherothrombotic causes of death, may have prevented previous analyses of clinical trials from detecting a benefit for statins. We pooled data from two landmark trials of HF patients not on statin therapy randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily vs. placebo, CORONA and GISSI-HF, in order to improve our power to detect statistically significant differences in atherothrombotic events. We also accounted for competing risks from other causes of death. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used competing risks analyses to evaluate atherothrombotic events in the context of death from other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes. We also performed traditional Cox survival analyses of the same data with the intention that these statistical approaches would be complementary. CORONA participants (n = 5011, median follow-up 32.8 months) were older and sicker than GISSI-HF participants (n = 4574, median follow-up 46.9 months) by design. Rosuvastatin decreased risk for myocardial infarction (MI) among CORONA and GISSI-HF participants with ischaemic aetiology of HF (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.99, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between rosuvastatin and placebo in risks for stroke or death from other causes. CONCLUSION: This individual-level reanalysis of two landmark trials demonstrates a small but statistically significant decreased risk for MI among patients with ischaemic HF randomized to rosuvastatin vs. placebo. Rosuvastatin appears to be effective in preventing MI in ischaemic HF patients not already on statins.

ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS).

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies' Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 ­ 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.

Effects of conventional and aggressive statin treatment on markers of endothelial function and inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is considered to be a chronic inflammatory disorder. Several large-scale clinical studies demonstrate that markers of inflammation, such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), fibrinogen, and soluble CD40 ligand, are potent and independent predictors of vascular risk. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to investigate the effect of increasing the statin dose from conventional to aggressive treatment on lipids levels, inflammation, and endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We randomized 97 patients to either 20 mg simvastatin or 80 mg atorvastatin. Plasma levels of lipids, hsCRP, fibrinogen, soluble adhesion molecules, and nitric oxide-total were analyzed at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: Lipid values were significantly reduced in both treatment groups, but with significantly greater reduction in the aggressively treated group. Furthermore, aggressive statin treatment significantly decreased hsCRP and fibrinogen, while only small reductions were seen in the conventionally treated group, resulting in significant differences between the two treatment groups (p < 0.001). Nitric oxide-total increased significantly in both treatment groups, although the increase was more pronounced in the aggressively treated group (22.6 vs. 15.6%). CONCLUSION: Aggressive statin treatment significantly improved lipid status and reduced markers of inflammation and improved endothelial function compared with conventional treatment in patients with CAD. No interaction was observed, and high-dose treatment did not offer additional benefit compared with standard-dose treatment with respect to soluble adhesion molecules.