Search

Aims: We analysed the contemporary incidence, outcomes, and predictors of heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) before discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The baseline presence of HF or LVSD, or its development during hospitalisation, increases short- and long-term risk after MI, yet its incidence, predictors, and outcomes have not been well described in a large, international, general MI population., Methods and Results: The VALIANT registry included 5573 consecutive MI patients at 84 hospitals in nine countries from 1999 to 2001. A multivariable logistic survival model was constructed using baseline variables to determine the adjusted mortality risk for those with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Baseline variables were also tested for associations with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Of the 5566 patients analysed, 42% had HF and/or LVSD during hospitalisation. Their in-hospital mortality rate was 13.0% compared with 2.3% for those without HF and/or without LVSD. After adjustment for other baseline risk factors, in-hospital HF and/or LVSD carried a hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality of 4.12 (95% confidence interval: 3.08-5.56). Patients with HF and/or LVSD also had disproportionately higher rates of other cardiovascular events., Conclusions: HF and/or LVSD is common in the general contemporary MI population and precedes 80.3% of all in-hospital deaths after MI. Survivors of early MI-associated HF and/or LVSD have more complications, longer hospitalisations, and are more likely to die during hospitalisation. Although baseline variables can identify MI patients at highest risk for HF and/or LVSD, such patients are less likely to receive indicated procedures and medical therapies.

Background: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients., Methods: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause., Results: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group., Conclusions: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival., (Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial compared outcomes with: (1) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (ACEI) with the reference agent captopril; (2) angiotensin-receptor blockade (ARB) with valsartan; or (3) both in patients with heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) after myocardial infarction (MI)., Aims: a goal of this active-control trial was to simulate conditions that would lead current practitioners to use ACEIs. Thus, we compared characteristics of VALIANT patients with those of patients in placebo-controlled trials that established ACEIs as standard treatment., Methods and Results: We collected demographic, clinical, medication and imaging information from 14703 patients in 24 countries. This high-risk population was a median 65.8 years old, and 31.1% were female. Most (51.8%) showed imaging evidence of LVSD at enrollment. Most (72%) had Killip class>/=II HF. Patients received evidence-based therapies at rates similar to those of contemporary MI trials and at an improved rate compared with prior placebo-controlled ACEI trials., Conclusion: VALIANT represents the largest globally representative cohort enrolled with HF and/or LVSD after MI. Patients were similar to those in placebo-controlled ACEI trials while reflecting improvements in evidence-based care. With enrollment complete, VALIANT is poised to define the optimal strategy for renin-angiotensin system blockade after MI to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

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.