Search

Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) is a rare X-linked lysosomal storage disease, caused by defects of the alpha-galactosidase A (GLA) gene. AFD can affect the heart, brain, kidney, eye, skin, peripheral nerves, and gastrointestinal tract. Cardiology (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy), neurology (cryptogenic stroke), and nephrology (end-stage renal failure) screening studies suggest the prevalence of GLA variants is 0.62%, with diagnosis confirmation in 0.12%. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to expand screening from these settings to include ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology, internal medicine, pediatrics, and medical genetics to increase diagnostic yield and comprehensively evaluate organ involvement in AFD patients. METHODS: In a 10-year prospective multidisciplinary, multicenter study, we expanded clinical, genetic, and biochemical screening to consecutive patients enrolled from all aforementioned clinical settings. We tested the GLA gene and α-galactosidase A activity in plasma and leukocytes. Inclusion criteria comprised phenotypical traits and absence of male-to-male transmission. Screening was extended to relatives of probands harboring GLA mutations. RESULTS: Of 2,034 probands fulfilling inclusion criteria, 37 (1.8%) were carriers of GLA mutations. Cascade family screening identified 60 affected relatives; clinical data were available for 4 affected obligate carriers. Activity of α-galactosidase A in plasma and leukocytes was diagnostic in male subjects, but not in female subjects. Of the 101 family members harboring mutations, 86 were affected, 10 were young healthy carriers, and 5 refused clinical evaluation. In the 86 patients, involved organs or organ systems included the heart (69%), peripheral nerves (46%), kidney (45%), eye (37%), brain (34%), skin (32%), gastrointestinal tract (31%), and auditory system (19%). Globotriaosylceramide accumulated in organ-specific and non-organ-specific cells in atypical and classic variants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Screening probands with clinically suspected AFD significantly increased diagnostic yield. The heart was the organ most commonly involved, independent of the clinical setting in which the patient was first evaluated. Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Digoxin is the oldest cardiac drug still in contemporary use, yet its role in the management of patients with heart failure (HF) remains controversial. A purified cardiac glycoside derived from the foxglove plant, digoxin increases ejection fraction, augments cardiac output, and reduces pulmonary capillary wedge pressure without causing deleterious increases in heart rate or decreases in blood pressure. Moreover, it is also a neurohormonal modulator at low doses. In the pivotal DIG (Digitalis Investigation Group) trial, digoxin therapy was shown to reduce all-cause and HF-specific hospitalizations but had no effect on survival. With the discovery of neurohormonal blockers capable of reducing mortality in HF with reduced ejection fraction, the results of the DIG trial were viewed as neutral, and the use of digoxin declined precipitously. Although modern drug and device-based therapies have dramatically improved the survival of ambulatory patients with HF, outcomes for patients with worsening chronic HF, defined as deteriorating signs and symptoms on standard therapy often leading to unscheduled clinic or emergency department visits or hospitalization, have largely remained unchanged over the past 2 decades. The available data suggest that a therapeutic trial of digoxin may be appropriate in patients with worsening chronic heart failure who remain symptomatic.

Objectives This study evaluated whether a xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitor, oxypurinol, produces clinical benefits in patients with New York Heart Association functional class III to IV heart failure due to systolic dysfunction receiving optimal medical therapy. Background Increased XO activity may contribute to heart failure pathophysiology. Methods Patients (n = 405) were randomized to oxypurinol (600 mg/day) or placebo. Efficacy at 24 weeks was assessed using a composite end point comprising heart failure morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Results The percentage of patients characterized as improved, unchanged, or worsened did not differ between those receiving oxypurinol or placebo. Oxypurinol reduced serum uric acid (SUA) by ∼2 mg/dl (p 9.5 mg/dl, n = 108) responded favorably to oxypurinol (p = 0.02 for interaction term), whereas oxypurinol patients with SUA Conclusions Oxypurinol did not produce clinical improvements in unselected patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure. However, post-hoc analysis suggests that benefits occur in patients with elevated SUA in a manner correlating with the degree of SUA reduction. Serum uric acid may serve as a valuable biomarker to target XO inhibition in heart failure. (Oxypurinol Compared With Placebo for Class III-IV NYHA Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00063687)

OBJECTIVES Whether beta-blockers reduce atrial arrhythmias and, when added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, ventricular arrhythmia is unknown. BACKGROUND Ventricular and atrial arrhythmias are common after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and are associated with a poor prognosis. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce the incidence of both types of arrhythmia. METHODS The antiarrhythmic effect of carvedilol was examined in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial, the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) study, which enrolled 1,959 patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function after AMI, 98% of whom were treated with an ACE inhibitor. RESULTS The incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter was 53 to 984 (5.4%) in the placebo group and 22 to 975 (2.3%) in the carvedilol group, giving a carvedilol/placebo hazard ratio (HR) of 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.68; p = 0.0003). The corresponding rates of ventricular tachycardia/flutter/fibrillation were 38 to 984 (3.9%) and 9 to 975 (0.9%) (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Carvedilol has a powerful antiarrhythmic effect after AMI, even in patients already treated with an ACE inhibitor. Carvedilol suppresses atrial as well as ventricular arrhythmias in these patients.

BACKGROUND Carvedilol reduces disease progression in heart failure, but to our knowledge, its effects on hospitalizations and costs have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES We examined the effects on hospitalization frequency and costs in the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. This program consisted of four concurrent, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving 1,094 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, which treated patients with placebo or carvedilol for up to 15 months (median, 6.5 months). METHODS Detailed resource utilization data were collected for all hospitalizations occurring between randomization and the end of follow-up. In-patient care costs were estimated based on observed levels of resource use. RESULTS Compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of hospitalization for any reason by 29% (p = 0.009), cardiovascular hospitalizations by 28% (p = 0.034) and heart failure hospitalizations by 38% (p = 0.041). Carvedilol also decreased the mean number of hospitalizations per patient (for cardiovascular reasons 30% [p = 0.02], for heart failure 53% [p = 0.03]). Among hospitalized patients, carvedilol reduced severity of illness during hospital admission, as reflected by shorter length of stay and less frequent use of intensive care. For heart failure hospital admissions, carvedilol decreased mean length of stay by 37% (p = 0.03) and mean number of intensive care unit/coronary care unit days by 83% (p = 0.001), with similar effects on cardiovascular admissions. As a result, estimated inpatient care costs with carvedilol were 57% lower for cardiovascular admissions (p = 0.016) and 81% lower for heart failure admissions (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS Carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition reduces hospitalization risk as well as severity of illness and resource utilization during admission in patients with chronic heart failure.

Digoxin is the oldest cardiac drug still in contemporary use, yet its role in the management of patients with heart failure (HF) remains controversial. A purified cardiac glycoside derived from the foxglove plant, digoxin increases ejection fraction, augments cardiac output, and reduces pulmonary capillary wedge pressure without causing deleterious increases in heart rate or decreases in blood pressure. Moreover, it is also a neurohormonal modulator at low doses. In the pivotal DIG (Digitalis Investigation Group) trial, digoxin therapy was shown to reduce all-cause and HF-specific hospitalizations but had no effect on survival. With the discovery of neurohormonal blockers capable of reducing mortality in HF with reduced ejection fraction, the results of the DIG trial were viewed as neutral, and the use of digoxin declined precipitously. Although modern drug and device-based therapies have dramatically improved the survival of ambulatory patients with HF, outcomes for patients with worsening chronic HF, defined as deteriorating signs and symptoms on standard therapy often leading to unscheduled clinic or emergency department visits or hospitalization, have largely remained unchanged over the past 2 decades. The available data suggest that a therapeutic trial of digoxin may be appropriate in patients with worsening chronic heart failure who remain symptomatic.

ObjectivesTo examine the feasibility of using milrinone to test pulmonary vascular reactivity in patients before heart transplantation, we tested the hypothesis that milrinone would lower pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in patients with severe heart failure.BackgroundFixed pulmonary hypertension is a risk factor for right heart failure and death after orthotopic heart transplantation. Sodium nitroprusside, the agent used most commonly to test for reversibility of pulmonary hypertension before transplantation, requires dose titration and is frequently limited by hypotension. Milrinone is an intravenously active phosphodiesterase inhibitor that acts rapidly and exerts both positive inotropic and direct vasodilator effects in patients with heart failure. The ability of milrinone to lower PVR in patients with heart failure has not been tested.MethodsIn 27 patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV heart failure referred for heart transplantation with a PVR ≥ 200 dynes-s-cm−5, we measured the hemodynamic response to a single intravenous bolus of milrinone (50μg/kg body weight) infused over 1 min.ResultsMilrinone decreased PVR in all patients. The effect was maximal 5 to 10 min after the bolus and persisted for at least 20 min. The reduction in PVR at 5 min ([mean ± SEM] 31 ± 4%) was associated with a 42 ± 4% increase in cardiac output and decreases of 12 ± 4% and 16 ± 5% in mean pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures, respectively, but no change in transpulmonary pressure gradient. Milrinone had no effect on heart rate or systemic arterial pressure. The magnitude of the decrease in PVR correlated inversely with the milrinone-induced increase in cardiac output.ConclusionsBolus milrinone consistently decreases PVR in patients with pulmonary hypertension secondary to severe heart failure. This effect is rapid in onset and well tolerated, even by patients with low systemic arterial pressure. An intravenous bolus of milrinone can be used to test for the reversibility of pulmonary hypertension in patients with heart failure undergoing evaluation for heart transplantation.

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with myocardial fibrosis that is thought to contribute to diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. In patients with hypertension, ultrasonic backscatter detected increased myocardial fibrosis. To determine whether MetS is

We describe the results of two placebo-controlled trials (MIL-1077 and MIL-1078) designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oral milrinone administered together with converting enzyme inhibitors to patients with congestive heart failure. Although these trials were terminated prematurely, they provide the only controlled data regarding the effect of oral milrinone on exercise capacity in patients receiving converting enzyme inhibitors. Of the 254 patients randomized, 140 completed one of the trials or reached an end point and are the basis of this report. In both trials, there was a clear trend for an increase in exercise capacity in the milrinone-treated patients (+ 26 ± 8% vs. +5 ± 7% in MIL-1077 and + 11 ± 5% vs. + 2 ± 4% in MIL-1078). Symptoms of congestive heart failure were decreased in one trial but not the other. Quality of life, as assessed by a questionnaire, was not effected in either trial. There was an increased incidence of adverse events in milrinone-treated patients. Adverse events related primarily to hypotension and vasodilation led to discontinuation of drug in 18 milrinone-treated patients vs. 1 placebo-treated patient. Milrinone had little or no proarrhythmic effect and cardiovascular deaths were distributed equally between the milrinone and placebo groups. These data suggest that when used in combination with a converting enzyme inhibitor, oral milrinone improves exercise capacity but is associated with a high incidence of adverse events that appear to be related to excessive vasodilation.

This study evaluated whether a xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitor, oxypurinol, produces clinical benefits in patients with New York Heart Association functional class III to IV heart failure due to systolic dysfunction receiving optimal medical therapy.Increased XO activity may contribute to heart failure pathophysiology.Patients (n = 405) were randomized to oxypurinol (600 mg/day) or placebo. Efficacy at 24 weeks was assessed using a composite end point comprising heart failure morbidity, mortality, and quality of life.The percentage of patients characterized as improved, unchanged, or worsened did not differ between those receiving oxypurinol or placebo. Oxypurinol reduced serum uric acid (SUA) by approximately 2 mg/dl (p0.001). In a subgroup analysis, patients with elevated SUA (9.5 mg/dl, n = 108) responded favorably to oxypurinol (p = 0.02 for interaction term), whereas oxypurinol patients with SUA9.5 mg/dl exhibited a trend towards worsening. In addition, SUA reduction to oxypurinol correlated with favorable clinical response. Within the entire oxypurinol patient cohort, those characterized as either improved or unchanged had significantly greater reductions in SUA compared with patients who worsened (-2.3 +/- 2.1 mg/dl vs. -1.0 +/- 1.9 mg/dl, p = 0.0006). In placebo patients, lower baseline SUA, but not change in SUA, correlated with improved clinical outcome.Oxypurinol did not produce clinical improvements in unselected patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure. However, post-hoc analysis suggests that benefits occur in patients with elevated SUA in a manner correlating with the degree of SUA reduction. Serum uric acid may serve as a valuable biomarker to target XO inhibition in heart failure. (Oxypurinol Compared With Placebo for Class III-IV NYHA Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00063687).

We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of tezosentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist, in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF).Tezosentan has been previously shown to improve hemodynamics in patients with stable chronic HF.In a double-blind fashion, 292 patients (cardiac indexor =2.5 l/min per m(2) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP)or =15 mm Hg) who were admitted to the hospital and in need of intravenous treatment for acute HF and central hemodynamic monitoring were randomized to 24-h intravenous treatment with tezosentan (50 or 100 mg/h) or placebo. Central hemodynamic variables, the dyspnea score, and safety variables were measured.After 6 h of treatment, significantly greater increases in the cardiac index and decreases in PCWP were observed with both tezosentan dosages than with placebo (mean treatment effects at 0.38 and 0.37 l/min per m(2) with 50 and 100 mg/h and -3.9 mm Hg for each dose, respectively; p0.0001). This effect was maintained during the remaining infusion and foror =6 h after treatment cessation. A tendency for an improved dyspnea score and a decreased risk of clinical worsening was observed after 24 h of treatment with each tezosentan dose. Adverse events, more frequent with tezosentan than with placebo (headache, asymptomatic hypotension, early worsening of renal function, nausea, vomiting), were dose-related.Intravenous tezosentan rapidly and effectively improved hemodynamics in these patients. The similar beneficial effects of the two dosages and the increased dose-related adverse events with the higher dosage suggest that the optimal dosing regimen is50 mg/h.

Whether beta-blockers reduce atrial arrhythmias and, when added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, ventricular arrhythmia is unknown.Ventricular and atrial arrhythmias are common after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and are associated with a poor prognosis. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce the incidence of both types of arrhythmia.The antiarrhythmic effect of carvedilol was examined in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial, the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) study, which enrolled 1,959 patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function after AMI, 98% of whom were treated with an ACE inhibitor.The incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter was 53 to 984 (5.4%) in the placebo group and 22 to 975 (2.3%) in the carvedilol group, giving a carvedilol/placebo hazard ratio (HR) of 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.68; p = 0.0003). The corresponding rates of ventricular tachycardia/flutter/fibrillation were 38 to 984 (3.9%) and 9 to 975 (0.9%) (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.49; p0.0001).Carvedilol has a powerful antiarrhythmic effect after AMI, even in patients already treated with an ACE inhibitor. Carvedilol suppresses atrial as well as ventricular arrhythmias in these patients.

Carvedilol reduces disease progression in heart failure, but to our knowledge, its effects on hospitalizations and costs have not been evaluated.We examined the effects on hospitalization frequency and costs in the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. This program consisted of four concurrent, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving 1,094 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, which treated patients with placebo or carvedilol for up to 15 months (median, 6.5 months).Detailed resource utilization data were collected for all hospitalizations occurring between randomization and the end of follow-up. In-patient care costs were estimated based on observed levels of resource use.Compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of hospitalization for any reason by 29% (p = 0.009), cardiovascular hospitalizations by 28% (p = 0.034) and heart failure hospitalizations by 38% (p = 0.041). Carvedilol also decreased the mean number of hospitalizations per patient (for cardiovascular reasons 30% [p = 0.02], for heart failure 53% [p = 0.03]). Among hospitalized patients, carvedilol reduced severity of illness during hospital admission, as reflected by shorter length of stay and less frequent use of intensive care. For heart failure hospital admissions, carvedilol decreased mean length of stay by 37% (p = 0.03) and mean number of intensive care unit/coronary care unit days by 83% (p = 0.001), with similar effects on cardiovascular admissions. As a result, estimated inpatient care costs with carvedilol were 57% lower for cardiovascular admissions (p = 0.016) and 81% lower for heart failure admissions (p = 0.022).Carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition reduces hospitalization risk as well as severity of illness and resource utilization during admission in patients with chronic heart failure.

We describe the results of two placebo-controlled trials (MIL-1077 and MIL-1078) designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oral milrinone administered together with converting enzyme inhibitors to patients with congestive heart failure. Although these trials were terminated prematurely, they provide the only controlled data regarding the effect of oral milrinone on exercise capacity in patients receiving converting enzyme inhibitors. Of the 254 patients randomized, 140 completed one of the trials or reached an end point and are the basis of this report. In both trials, there was a clear trend for an increase in exercise capacity in the milrinone-treated patients (+26 +/- 8% vs. +5 +/- 7% in MIL-1077 and +11 +/- 5% vs. +2 +/- 4% in MIL-1078). Symptoms of congestive heart failure were decreased in one trial but not the other. Quality of life, as assessed by a questionnaire, was not effected in either trial. There was an increased incidence of adverse events in milrinone-treated patients. Adverse events related primarily to hypotension and vasodilation led to discontinuation of drug in 18 milrinone-treated patients vs. 1 placebo-treated patient. Milrinone had little or no proarrhythmic effect and cardiovascular deaths were distributed equally between the milrinone and placebo groups. These data suggest that when used in combination with a converting enzyme inhibitor, oral milrinone improves exercise capacity but is associated with a high incidence of adverse events that appear to be related to excessive vasodilation.

Myocardial muscarinic receptor stimulation attenuates the inotropic response to Ii-adrenergic receptor stimulation in the normal and failing human LV Its effect on isovolumic LV relaxation in humans is unknown. Methods We investigated 12 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (EF 33 ± 3%1 and 6 patients with normal LV function (EF 71 ± 3%). Hemodynamic responses (Millar) were measured during intracoronary infusion of dobutamine (Dob) 25 /lg/min, acetylcholine (Ach) 1 /lM, and during the combination of Dob and Ach. Results There were no changes in HR during drug infusions. Dob had a positive inotropic effect. increasing LV +dP/dt by 662 ± 82 mmHg/s (p

To evaluate the short-term hemodynamic and neuroendocrine effects of nifedipine in heart failure, it was compared with nitroprusside, a balanced vasodilator without known inotropic effect, in equihypotensive doses during right and left heart catheterization in nine patients with heart failure. Mean arterial pressure decreased from 89 +/- 12 to 76 +/- 14 mm Hg with nitroprusside, and from 90 +/- 12 to 75 +/- 13 mm Hg with sublingual nifedipine. Right atrial, pulmonary artery, pulmonary capillary wedge and left ventricular end-diastolic pressures decreased significantly with nitroprusside, but not with nifedipine. Cardiac index and stroke volume index increased to a similar extent with both drugs; in contrast, stroke work index increased significantly with nitroprusside, but not with nifedipine. Peak rate of left ventricular pressure development (dP/dt) (measured with a micromanometer-tipped catheter in seven patients) was unchanged with nitroprusside, but decreased significantly with nifedipine (747 +/- 292 to 639 +/- 238 mm Hg/s; p less than 0.002). There was no change in heart rate with either medication. Plasma norepinephrine and epinephrine concentrations were not altered significantly by either drug. Plasma renin activity was not changed by nitroprusside infusion, but was increased after the administration of nifedipine. Thus, in contrast to the balanced vasodilator action of nitroprusside, the effect of nifedipine is predominantly on the arterial circulation. In these patients with heart failure, reflex sympathetic stimulation did not occur in response to a decrease in systemic arterial pressure by either vasodilator. A negative inotropic effect occurred after the administration of nifedipine, but not nitroprusside.

The predictive value of radionuclide ventriculography was studied in 34 patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (less than 40%) and clinically evident congestive heart failure secondary to atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. In addition to left ventricular ejection fraction, right ventricular ejection fraction and extent of left ventricular paradox were obtained in an attempt to identify a subgroup at increased risk of mortality during the ensuing months. The 16 patients who were alive after a 2 year follow-up period had a higher right ventricular ejection fraction and less extensive left ventricular dyskinesia. When a right ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% was used as a discriminant, mortality was significantly greater among the 21 patients with a depressed right ventricular ejection fraction (71 versus 23%), a finding confirmed by a life table analysis. Depressed right ventricular function was further linked to more severely compromised left ventricular function, as confirmed by a greater reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction and by an increased extent of left ventricular dyskinesia. These patients had a greater prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and previous inferior myocardial infarction but the differences between groups were not statistically significant. It appears that the multiple factors contributing to the reduction in right ventricular ejection fraction make it a useful index not only for assessing biventricular function, but also for predicting patient outcome.