Differences between familial and sporadic dilated cardiomyopathy: ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis registry.

AIMS: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a complex disease where genetics interplay with extrinsic factors. This study aims to compare the phenotype, management, and outcome of familial DCM (FDCM) and non-familial (sporadic) DCM (SDCM) across Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with DCM that were enrolled in the prospective ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis Registry were included. Baseline characteristics, genetic testing, genetic yield, and outcome were analysed comparing FDCM and SDCM; 1260 adult patients were studied (238 FDCM, 707 SDCM, and 315 not disclosed). Patients with FDCM were younger (P < 0.01), had less severe disease phenotype at presentation (P < 0.02), more favourable baseline cardiovascular risk profiles (P ≤ 0.007), and less medication use (P ≤ 0.042). Outcome at 1 year was similar and predicted by NYHA class (HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.25-0.81]) and LVEF per % decrease (HR 1.05; 95% CI [1.02-1.08]. Throughout Europe, patients with FDCM received more genetic testing (47% vs. 8%, P < 0.01) and had higher genetic yield (55% vs. 22%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that FDCM and SDCM have significant differences at baseline but similar short-term prognosis. Whether modification of associated cardiovascular risk factors provide opportunities for treatment remains to be investigated. Our results also show a prevalent role of genetics in FDCM and a non-marginal yield in SDCM although genetic testing is largely neglected in SDCM. Limited genetic testing and heterogeneity in panels provides a scaffold for improvement of guideline adherence.

A randomized placebo-controlled study on the effect of nifedipine on coronary endothelial function and plaque formation in patients with coronary artery disease: the ENCORE II study.

AIMS: Endothelial dysfunction and plaque formation are features of atherosclerosis. Inhibition of L-type calcium channels or HMG-CoA pathway improves endothelial function and reduces plaque size. Thus, we investigated in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) the effects of a calcium antagonist on coronary endothelial function and plaque size. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 454 patients undergoing PCI, acetylcholine (10(-6) to 10(-4) M) was infused in a coronary segment without significant CAD. Changes in coronary diameter were measured and an intravascular ultrasound examination (IVUS) was performed. On top of statin therapy, patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to placebo or nifedipine GITS 30-60 mg/day and followed for 18-24 months. Blood pressure was lower on nifedipine than on placebo by 5.8/2.1 mmHg (P < 0.001) as was total and LDL cholesterol (4.8 mg/dL; P = 0.495), while HDL was higher (3.6 mg/dL; P = 0.026). In the most constricting segment, nifedipine reduced vasoconstriction to acetylcholine (14.0% vs. placebo 7.7%; P < 0.0088). The percentage change in plaque volume with nifedipine and placebo, respectively, was 1.0 and 1.9%, ns. CONCLUSION: The ENCORE II trial demonstrates in a multi-centre setting that calcium channel blockade with nifedipine for up to 2 years improves coronary endothelial function on top of statin treatment, but did not show an effect of nifedipine on plaque volume.

Are beta-blockers needed in patients receiving spironolactone for severe chronic heart failure? An analysis of the COPERNICUS study.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of beta-blockers and aldosterone receptor antagonists are now well established in patients with severe systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it is unclear whether beta-blockers are able to provide additional benefit in patients already receiving aldosterone antagonists. We therefore examined this question in the COPERNICUS study of 2289 patients with severe CHF receiving the beta1-beta2/alpha1 blocker carvedilol compared with placebo. METHODS: Patients were divided post hoc into subgroups according to whether they were receiving spironolactone (n = 445) or not (n = 1844) at baseline. Consistency of the effect of carvedilol versus placebo was examined for these subgroups with respect to the predefined end points of all-cause mortality, death or CHF-related hospitalizations, death or cardiovascular hospitalizations, and death or all-cause hospitalizations. RESULTS: The beneficial effect of carvedilol was similar among patients who were or were not receiving spironolactone for each of the 4 efficacy measures. For all-cause mortality, the Cox model hazard ratio for carvedilol compared with placebo was 0.65 (95% CI 0.36-1.15) in patients receiving spironolactone and 0.65 (0.51-0.83) in patients not receiving spironolactone. Hazard ratios for death or all-cause hospitalization were 0.76 (0.55-1.05) versus 0.76 (0.66-0.88); for death or cardiovascular hospitalization, 0.61 (0.42-0.89) versus 0.75 (0.64-0.88); and for death or CHF hospitalization, 0.63 (0.43-0.94) versus 0.70 (0.59-0.84), in patients receiving and not receiving spironolactone, respectively. The safety and tolerability of treatment with carvedilol were also similar, regardless of background spironolactone. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol remained clinically efficacious in the COPERNICUS study of patients with severe CHF when added to background spironolactone in patients who were practically all receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (or angiotensin II antagonist) therapy. Therefore, the use of spironolactone in patients with severe CHF does not obviate the necessity of additional treatment that interferes with the adverse effects of sympathetic activation, specifically beta-blockade.