The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation outperforms the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate in chronic systolic heart failure.

AIMS: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula estimates glomerular filtration rate (GFR) better than the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (sMDRD) formula in numerous populations. It has not previously been validated in heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The GFR was measured in 120 patients with chronic systolic heart failure (CHF) using [(125)I]iothalamate clearance (GFR(IOTH)) and estimated using the sMDRD and CKD-EPI equations. Accuracy, bias, and prognostic performance were compared. Cockcroft-Gault, CKD-EPI serum cystatin C, and CKD-EPI creatinine-serum cystatin C equations were compared in secondary analyses. Mean age was 59 ± 12 years, 80% were male. Mean LVEF was 29 ± 10%. Mean GFR(IOTH) was 74 ± 27 mL/min/1.73 m(2), and mean estimated GFR was 66 ± 23 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (CKD-EPI) and 63 ± 21 mL/min/1.73m(2) (sMDRD). CKD-EPI showed less bias than sMDRD (-8 ± 15 vs. -11 ± 16 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P < 0.001). Both equations underestimate at higher and overestimate at lower GFR(IOTH). Eleven patients (9%) were accurately reclassified into lower CKD classes with CKD-EPI. Cockcroft-Gault showed lower bias (-3 ± 16 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) but worse precision and accuracy. Cystatin C-based estimation showed the lowest bias (-3 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and the best precision and accuracy. Prognostic value did not differ between all GFR estimates CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI equation more accurately estimates measured GFR than the sMDRD equation in CHF patients, with less bias and greater accuracy and precision. The prognostic power of all GFR assessments was equivalent. Based on better performance and equal risk prediction, we believe the CKI-EPI equation should be the preferred creatinine-based GFR estimation method in heart failure patients, particularly those with preserved or moderately impaired renal function.

Urinary proteins in heart failure.

Renal insufficiency is common in patients with heart failure (HF), with both acute kidney injury and worsening renal function being associated with poor prognosis. The interplay between cardiac and renal failure has been termed the cardiorenal syndrome and is currently the subject of intense investigation. Urinary biochemistry has several advantages over blood or serum analyses, including lower costs, better patient comfort, and higher sensitivity to renal injury. However, urinalysis is currently not part of routine daily practice in cardiology. Recent advances in proteomics have allowed identification of numerous novel urinary biomarkers, many of which show promise in HF populations. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of both traditional and novel urinary biomarkers, examining evidence for diagnostic and prognostic value in HF as well as potential clinical utility.

Long-term impact of secondary preventive treatments in patients with stable angina.

We assessed the independent effects of beta blockers, calcium antagonists, lipid-lowering drugs, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), anti-platelet drugs, vitamin K antagonists, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG) on mortality and on the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure in patients with stable angina pectoris. We estimated the effects of the interventions used at baseline by multivariate Cox regression and during follow-up by G-estimation in 7,665 patients followed for a mean of 5 years in the ACTION trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing all cause mortality among users during follow-up to non-users were 1.01 (0.91, 1.09) for beta blockade, 0.82 (0.75, 0.89) for ACEIs or ARBs, 0.93 (0.87, 0.98) for calcium antagonists, 0.54 (0.49, 0.62) for lipid-lowering drugs, 0.49 (0.42, 0.53) for anti-platelet drugs, 0.74 (0.69, 0.78) for PCI, and 0.91 (0.82, 0.98) for CABG. Effects on the composite endpoint were less marked. This observational study confirms that ACEIs or ARBs, lipid-lowering and anti-platelet drugs as used in the everyday management of stable angina have independent secondary preventive effects. Calcium antagonists, PCI and CABG also appear to improve outcome.

Effects of rosuvastatin on coronary flow reserve and metabolic mismatch in patients with heart failure (from the CORONA Study).

In patients with heart failure (HF), statin treatment might improve myocardial perfusion, but could also have detrimental effects on myocardial metabolism. A predefined substudy of the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA) trial sought to determine the effects of statin treatment on myocardial blood flow reserve and cardiac metabolism. Sixteen patients with HF (New York Heart Association class II or III) were randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg/day (n = 8) or placebo treatment (n = 8). At baseline and after 6 months of treatment, nitrogen-13 ammonia at rest and after dipyridamole stress and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography were performed. Rosuvastatin treatment significantly lowered total (-36%, p <0.01) and low-density lipoprotein (-47%, p <0.001) cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels (-36%, p <0.05). Myocardial perfusion reserve (ratio) changed from 1.64 +/- 0.90 to 1.30 +/- 0.37 in placebo-treated and from 1.51 +/- 0.18 to 1.55 +/- 0.34 in rosuvastatin-treated patients (p = NS). Metabolic mismatch changed from 4.25 +/- 2.37% to 4.38 +/- 3.81% in placebo-treated and from 5.13 +/- 2.75% to 3.50 +/- 2.73% in rosuvastatin-treated patients (p = NS). In conclusion, changes regarding myocardial perfusion and metabolic mismatch after 6 months of rosuvastatin treatment in patients with HF did not suggest any beneficial or adverse effects in this pilot study, although due to the small numbers of patients small effects might have been missed.

Effect of moderate or intensive disease management program on outcome in patients with heart failure: Coordinating Study Evaluating Outcomes of Advising and Counseling in Heart Failure (COACH).

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) disease management programs are widely implemented, but data about their effect on outcome have been inconsistent. METHODS: The Coordinating Study Evaluating Outcomes of Advising and Counseling in Heart Failure (COACH) was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in which 1023 patients were enrolled after hospitalization because of HF. Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: a control group (follow-up by a cardiologist) and 2 intervention groups with additional basic or intensive support by a nurse specializing in management of patients with HF. Patients were studied for 18 months. Primary end points were time to death or rehospitalization because of HF and the number of days lost to death or hospitalization. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 71 years; 38% were women; and 50% of patients had mild HF and 50% had moderate to severe HF. During the study, 411 patients (40%) were readmitted because of HF or died from any cause: 42% in the control group, and 41% and 38% in the basic and intensive support groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96 and 0.93, respectively; P = .73 and P = .52, respectively). The number of days lost to death or hospitalization was 39 960 in the control group, 33 731 days for the basic intervention group (P = .81), and 34 268 for the intensive support group (P = .49). All-cause mortality occurred in 29% of patients in the control group, and there was a trend toward lower mortality in the intervention groups combined (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.08; P = .18). There were slightly more hospitalizations in the 2 intervention groups (basic intervention group, P = .89; and intensive support group, P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: Neither moderate nor intensive disease management by a nurse specializing in management of patients with HF reduced the combined end points of death and hospitalization because of HF compared with standard follow-up. There was a nonsignificant, potentially relevant reduction in mortality, accompanied by a slight increase in the number of short hospitalizations in both intervention groups. Clinical Trial Registry http://trialregister.nl Identifier: NCT 98675639.

The efficacy of statin monotherapy uptitration versus switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin: results of the EASEGO study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy of doubling the statin dose or switching to the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg combination tablet (EZE/SIMVA) in patients on simvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg not at LDL-C target < 2.5 mmol/L. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with documented coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or type 2 diabetes (DM2) with LDL-C > or = 2.5 and < 5.0 mmol/L despite treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg were randomized to (1) double statin dose or (2) switch to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20, according to a PROBE study design. LDL-C, lipoprotein subfractions and safety data were assessed during the study. RESULTS: 119 of 178 (67%) patients in the EZE/SIMVA group and 49 of 189 (26%) in the doubling statin group reached target LDL-C < 2.5 mmol/L. The odds ratio of success for EZE/SIMVA versus doubling statin treatment in reaching the LDL-C target of < 2.5 mmol/L was 5.7 (95% CI: 3.7-9.0, p < 0.0001). A reduction in total cholesterol (TC), total/high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio and apolipoprotein B was observed in both groups, but this reduction was significantly more pronounced in the EZE/SIMVA group as compared with the doubling statin dose group. Treatment was well tolerated and no difference was observed between the two groups with regard to adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In CHD/DM2 patients treated with simvastatin or atorvastatin with LDL-C persistently > or = 2.5 mmol/L, switching to the EZE/SIMVA was more effective in attaining the LDL-C target of < 2.5 mmol/L than doubling the statin dose.

Nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) in the treatment of coronary heart disease and hypertension.

Since the 1960s, calcium antagonists have been available for the treatment of angina pectoris and hypertension. The first of this class, nifedipine, was introduced and readily accepted as the third treatment option for angina, alongside beta-blockers and nitrates. However, the short-acting formulations of nifedipine had pharmacokinetic properties that were far from ideal and in 1995, several studies involving various dosing regimens reported possible dangerous effects in secondary prevention. Since then, large-scale, randomized controlled trials with new controlled-released formulations of nifedipine have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of this drug. As a consequence of these results, guidelines for both hypertension and angina pectoris have been recently reconsidered, and have put the modern formulations of calcium channel blockers in a pole position. Within this group of therapeutics, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system has a unique position and it cannot be replaced by other controlled-release formulations of nifedipine, the pharmaceutical properties of which have yet to be tested in large-scale outcome trials.

Resource utilization implications of treatment were able to be assessed from appropriately reported clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Published clinical trial data rarely allow assessment of the health care resource utilization implications of treatment. We give an example of how these can be assessed given appropriate tabulation of data. METHODS: Data from a trial comparing long-acting nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system to placebo in 7,665 patients with stable angina pectoris was analyzed. RESULTS: Relative to placebo, nifedipine significantly increased mean cardiovascular (CV) event-free survival by 41 days but had no effect on mean survival. Per 100 years of follow-up, 78.1 patient-years of double-blind nifedipine administration reduced use of another calcium antagonist, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, a diuretic and a cardiac glycoside by 1.54, 3.73, 2.63, 2.23, and 0.64 years, respectively, whereas 0.21 less hospitalization for overt heart failure, 0.47 less hospitalization for any stroke or transient ischemic attack, 0.8 less coronary angiogram, 0.38 less coronary bypass procedure, and 0.13 additional orthopedic procedure was required. Combining resource utilization with cost data for one particular hospital showed that one additional year of CV event-free survival costs an average additional euro 3,036 in the setting considered. CONCLUSION: Appropriately tabulated clinical trial data allows clinicians to judge the resource utilization implications and economic effect of treatment decisions.

Clinical course of isolated stable angina due to coronary heart disease.

AIMS: To describe the clinical course of patients with stable angina due to coronary heart disease without a history of cardiovascular (CV) events or revascularization (isolated angina). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 7,665 patients in a trial comparing long-acting nifedipine with placebo, 2170 (28%) had isolated angina. During a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, 147 of these died (1.4/100 patient-years), while 761 (8.7/100 patient-years) either died, or had a cardiac event or procedure. The first event was death in 82, myocardial infarction or heart failure in 112, coronary revascularization in 171, and chest pain requiring hospitalization in 396. Six hundred and twelve patients (6.8/100 patient-years) underwent coronary angiography (CAG), followed by revascularization in 371. Sixty-eight of 262 deaths or major cardiac events were preceded by chest pain requiring hospitalization or revascularization. Event-rates after CAG were higher than before. The stroke rate was 0.7/100 patient-years (75 patients). CONCLUSION: Patients with stable isolated angina have low rates of death and major cardiac events, but relatively high rates of chest pain requiring hospitalization despite contemporary management. Since the majority of deaths and major CV clinical events are not preceded by clear warning symptoms, the main clinical implication is that measures to prevent such events must target all patients.

Diagnostic criteria and adjudication process both determine published event-rates: the ACTION trial experience.

OBJECTIVE: Few trials report event-adjudication procedures in detail. Using data from the ACTION (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS) study, we compared the impact on event-rates of an adjudication strategy based on systematic screening of all reported serious adverse events (SAEs) with a strategy based on investigator diagnoses. The final diagnosis was always made by a critical events committee (CEC) using standard criteria. METHODS: ACTION randomized 7665 patients with stable angina to either nifedipine or placebo. Pre-specified events included acute or procedural myocardial infarction (MI), refractory angina, heart failure and debilitating stroke. Clinically related SAEs including in-hospital procedures were combined into episodes independent from the investigator diagnoses entered on SAE reports. All fatal episodes and those episodes suggestive of pre-specified events were adjudicated by the CEC. RESULTS: During follow-up, 17,081 episodes were reported in 5312 patients. The SAE descriptions ruled out the occurrence of a pre-specified event in 28%. The remaining 72% were adjudicated by the CEC and 616 cases of MI, 361 of refractory angina, 275 of heart failure and 190 of debilitating stroke were diagnosed (total=1442). Had adjudication by the CEC been limited to the 3924 episodes (2397 patients) that were fatal or for which the investigator had reported any of the diagnoses mentioned, 98 cases of MI, 35 of refractory angina, 81 of heart failure and 14 of debilitating stroke would have been missed (total=228). CONCLUSION: Both the diagnostic criteria used and the adjudication process determine event-rates and conclusions about treatment effects in clinical trials. Published trial reports should always state if event-adjudication was independent of the diagnoses of investigators, and if all events of interest were adjudicated or only the first one.

Presence and development of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Experiences from the MERIT-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is common in heart failure, but data regarding beta-blockade in these patients and its ability to prevent new occurrence of atrial fibrillation are scarce. METHODS: Baseline ECGs in MERIT-HF were coded regarding baseline rhythm, and outcome was analyzed in relation to rhythm. Occurrence of atrial fibrillation during follow-up was also analyzed. RESULTS: At baseline atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 556 patients (13.9%). Mean metoprolol CR/XL dose in patients in atrial fibrillation (154 mg) and sinus rhythm (158 mg) was similar, as well as decrease in heart rate (14.8 and 13.7 bpm, respectively). Only 61 (total of 362) deaths occurred in those in atrial fibrillation at baseline, 31 on placebo and 30 on metoprolol (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.61-1.65). During follow-up, new atrial fibrillation was observed in 85 patients on placebo and 47 patients on metoprolol (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.37-0.76; p=0.0005). CONCLUSION: First, given the wide confidence interval, it was impossible to detect an interaction between metoprolol and mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Second, in patients with sinus rhythm at baseline, metoprolol reduced the incidence of atrial fibrillation during follow-up. However, we must be extremely cautious in over-interpreting effects in these subgroups.

LDL-C/HDL-C ratio in subjects with cardiovascular disease and a low HDL-C: results of the RADAR (Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in different Dosages And Reverse cholesterol transport) study.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C/HDL-C) is a reliable predictor of cardiovascular risk. Low HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease are associated with a high risk for cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on the LDL-C/HDL-C. METHODS: Patients aged 40-80 years with established cardiovascular disease and HDL-C < 1.0 mmol/L (< 40 mg/dL) entered as a 6-week dietary run-in period, before randomisation to open-label treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 230) or atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 231) for 6 weeks. Doses were increased after 6 weeks to rosuvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg, and after 12 weeks to rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Serum lipid parameters were measured at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 weeks. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of treatment, mean percentage change from baseline in LDL-C/HDL-C ratio was -47.0% in the rosuvastatin group and -41.9% in the atorvastatin group (p < 0.05 for between-group comparison). After 12 and 18 weeks of treatment, change from baseline was -53.0% and -57.3%, respectively, for rosucastatin, compared with -47.9% and -49.6%, respectively, for atorvastatin (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively, for between-group comparison). Rosuvastatin also reduced LDL-C, total cholesterol/HDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin at all three time points, and significantly improved total cholesterol/HDL-C and apolipoprotein B/A-I ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 10, 20 and 40 mg is significantly more effective than atorvastatin 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively, in improving the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio in patients with cardiovascular disease and low HDL-C. Further studies are required to clarify the benefits of rosuvastatin for reduction of cardiovascular risk.

Early invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy for patients who have acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation and with an elevated cardiac troponin T level. However, randomized trials have not shown an overall reduction in mortality, and the reduction in the rate of myocardial infarction in previous trials has varied depending on the definition of myocardial infarction. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1200 patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation who had chest pain, an elevated cardiac troponin T level (> or =0.03 mug per liter), and either electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia at admission or a documented history of coronary disease to an early invasive strategy or to a more conservative (selectively invasive) strategy. Patients received aspirin daily, enoxaparin for 48 hours, and abciximab at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention. The use of clopidogrel and intensive lipid-lowering therapy was recommended. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization for anginal symptoms within one year after randomization. RESULTS: The estimated cumulative rate of the primary end point was 22.7 percent in the group assigned to early invasive management and 21.2 percent in the group assigned to selectively invasive management (relative risk, 1.07; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.33; P=0.33). The mortality rate was the same in the two groups (2.5 percent). Myocardial infarction was significantly more frequent in the group assigned to early invasive management (15.0 percent vs. 10.0 percent, P=0.005), but rehospitalization was less frequent in that group (7.4 percent vs. 10.9 percent, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate that, given optimized medical therapy, an early invasive strategy was superior to a selectively invasive strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation and with an elevated cardiac troponin T level.

Effects of valsartan on circulating brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine in symptomatic chronic heart failure: the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) are strongly related to severity of and are independent predictors of outcome in heart failure. The long-term effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on BNP and NE in heart failure patients are not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both BNP and NE were measured in 4284 patients randomized to valsartan or placebo in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The effects of valsartan were tested by ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values and concomitant ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers. BNP and NE concentrations were similar at baseline in the 2 groups and were decreased by valsartan starting at 4 months and up to 24 months. BNP increased over time in the placebo group. At the end point, least-squares mean (+/-SEM) BNP increased from baseline by 23+/-5 pg/mL in the placebo group (n=1979) but decreased by 21+/-5 pg/mL (n=1940) in the valsartan group (P<0.0001). NE increased by 41+/-6 pg/mL (n=1979) and 12+/-6 pg/mL (n=1941) for placebo and valsartan, respectively (P=0.0003). Concomitant therapy with both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers significantly reduced the effect of valsartan on BNP but not on NE (P for interaction=0.0223 and 0.2289, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In Val-HeFT, the largest neurohormone study in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure, BNP and NE rose over time in the placebo group. Valsartan caused sustained reduction in BNP and attenuated the increase in NE over the course of the study. These neurohormone effects of valsartan are consistent with the clinical benefits reported in Val-HeFT.