Search

Background: Survivors of acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by heart failure and/or resulting in left ventricular dysfunction are at heightened risk for subsequent death and major nonfatal cardiovascular events. Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor has consistently been demonstrated to result in reductions in these risks by approximately 20%. The development of angiotensin II receptor blockers offers a new, more specific, and theoretically more complete pharmacologic mode to inhibit the adverse influence of angiotensin II., Methods: Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active controlled parallel group study comparing the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with valsartan, captopril, and their combination in high-risk patients after MI. The trial is designed with 3 arms, giving equal statistical consideration to survival comparisons of captopril versus the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan, as well as the combination of captopril plus valsartan, compared with a proven effective dose of captopril. This 14,500-patient trial is designed with an 86% power to detect a 15% reduction in mortality rate with either use of valsartan compared with captopril. The trial encourages optimal individualization of other proven therapies in acute and chronic infarction, and the international patient body ensures good representation of multiple practice patterns., Conclusion: VALIANT is a large international investigative effort that will evaluate the role of valsartan in the management of patients with MI associated with heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction. The use of a proven dose of captopril and the comparator arms with valsartan alone or in combination with captopril provides a unique test of whether the angiotensin II receptor blocker can make an additional improvement in clinical outcomes beyond angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Although hydralazine improves cardiac performance in patients with chronic left ventricular failure, its long-term clinical efficacy has not been established in controlled trials. We carried out a double-blind randomized trial of hydralazine (200 mg daily in 16 patients) versus placebo (16 patients) in patients with class III and IV symptoms while they were taking digitalis and diuretics. Maximal treadmill exercise time was determined prior to and at 4, 10, 18, and 26 weeks of hydralazine or placebo treatment; average follow-up was 20 weeks. We found no change in body weight, clinical class, resting heart rate and blood pressure, or heart size (by chest x-ray examination and echocardiogram) during treatment in either group. The total number of complicating clinical events was insignificantly fewer in the hydralazine treated group (8 vs 13). Control exercise duration in the hydralazine group averaged 259 +/- 21 seconds (SEM), and increased to 347 +/- 35 seconds at 4 weeks (p less than 0.01) and 421 +/- 38 seconds at 26 weeks (p less than 0.001). Exercise duration also increased significantly in the placebo group, from 271 +/- 30 seconds at control to 340 +/- 44 seconds at 4 weeks (p less than 0.02) and 339 +/- 46 seconds at 26 weeks (p less than 0.02). No differences between groups were significant. Left ventricular ejection fraction remained depressed and unchanged in both groups. Thus long-term vasodilator treatment with hydralazine alone is not significantly more effective than placebo in chronic heart failure.