Search

Study Objective: To determine whether metoprolol succinate (a beta(1)-selective beta-blocker) remains beta(1)-selective compared with carvedilol (a nonselective beta-blocker) during upward titration of doses in patients with American College of Cardiology (ACC) stage C heart failure., Design: Prospective, randomized, parallel-arm study. Setting. General clinical research center., Patients: Twenty-five beta-blocker-naïve adults with New York Heart Association functional classes II or III heart failure (i.e., ACC stage C). Intervention. Patients received either immediate-release carvedilol 3.125 mg twice/day or controlled-release metoprolol succinate 25 mg once/day; doses were titrated upward by doubling the dose every 2 weeks until reaching a maximum tolerated dose or a goal dose of carvedilol 25 mg twice/day and metoprolol 200 mg/day. Before each dose titration, terbutaline (a beta-receptor agonist) was infused at 6 mg/kg over 1 hour for determination of beta(2)-blockade., Measurements and Main Results: Patients were studied at baseline and after each dose titration of metoprolol succinate (at 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg once/day) and immediate-release carvedilol (at 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg twice/day). Glucose and potassium concentrations were measured twice serially at baseline, every 10 minutes during infusion, every 15 minutes for the first hour after infusion, and every 30 minutes for the second hour after infusion. The median area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was calculated for changes in glucose and potassium concentrations. As assessed by glucose AUC, there was no significant difference in the degree of beta(2)-blockade between metoprolol 200 mg and carvedilol 25 mg. In contrast to these data, the degree of beta(2)-blockade as assessed by potassium AUC was greater for carvedilol compared with metoprolol across all doses., Conclusion: In this ACC stage C heart failure population, carvedilol was nonselective at all clinically relevant doses, whereas metoprolol succinate was beta(1)-selective at low doses and became progressively nonselective at higher doses.

The authors measured long-term outcomes of patients who initiated carvedilol between 1990 and 1992 to test the hypothesis that carvedilol produces sustained benefits in heart failure patients. The study population consisted of 57 patients who completed a carvedilol placebo-controlled phase II trial. Patients were given open-label carvedilol and were titrated to the maximum dose. Patients were assessed by serial multigated acquisition, echocardiography, and symptom scores. Survival was assessed for all patients and censored as of January 1, 2004. Survival for ischemic vs nonischemic patients was compared using the log-rank test and further compared using Cox regression, controlling for covariates. Etiology of heart failure was ischemic in 15 patients and nonischemic in 42 patients. Median follow-up was 12.9 years. Resting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptom scores improved at 4 months of treatment and were sustained at 24 months. Left ventricular internal diameter in systole (LVIDS) and left ventricular internal diameter in diastole decreased significantly at 4 and 8 months, respectively, and LVIDS continued to improve at 24 months. Overall mortality was 43% in nonischemic patients and 73% in ischemic patients. In a multivariate analysis, ischemic etiology and baseline LVEF were significant predictors of mortality. Carvedilol produces sustained improvements in left ventricular remodeling and symptoms. Long-term survival is good, particularly in nonischemic patients.

Introduction: Alpha(1)-adrenergic receptor (alpha(1)-AR) stimulation produces smooth muscle contraction, vasoconstriction, and myocyte hypertrophy, suggesting a potential therapeutic role for alpha(1)-AR antagonists to reduce cardiac workload and myocardial hypertrophy. Preliminary reports suggest that vascular alpha(1)-ARs are desensitized in heart failure (HF) in a manner similar to myocardial beta(1)-ARs. We examined alpha(1)-AR signal transduction by repeat phenylephrine (PE) infusions in patients with HF receiving chronic carvedilol therapy., Methods: Twelve subjects with HF not currently receiving beta-blockers were up-titrated to maximum tolerable doses of carvedilol. Subjects underwent alpha(1)-AR stimulation testing at study baseline, 2 weeks after each dose titration, and 6 months after maintenance of maximum carvedilol dose. Phenylephrine infusions began at 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1), with dose titrations every 10 minutes, to a maximum of 5 microg kg(-1) min(-1). Phenylephrine dose response was evaluated by the PE rate required to elicit a 20 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure (BP), designated PS(20)., Results: All doses of carvedilol significantly reduced preinfusion measures of heart rate, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and mean arterial pressure. However, carvedilol also produced a paradoxical trend toward PS(20) reduction (indicating increased PE response) that reached significance at the completion of carvedilol dose titration (PS(20) ratio vs baseline = 0.78; P < .001). All effects were maintained over a 6-month treatment period with no evidence of tolerance., Conclusions: Increasing BP response to PE infusion suggests improvement in vascular alpha(1)-AR signal transduction with chronic carvedilol therapy. This effect is evident despite no detectable tolerance to preinfusion BP reductions. The varying affinities of alpha(1)-AR subtypes for carvedilol and PE may have contributed to this finding.

Background: Community patients with heart failure (HF) are older, less often treated by HF specialists, and have more comorbidity than those in randomized clinical trials. These differences might affect beta-blocker prescribing in HF., Methods: To explore patterns of beta-blocker prescribing for HF in the community and their association with outcomes, we determined carvedilol doses at end titration in 4113 patients from a community-based beta-blocker HF registry according to physician and patient characteristics, HF severity, and rates of hospitalization and death., Results: Female sex, age > or = 65 years, and left ventricular ejection fraction > or = 35% were associated with lower beta-blocker doses. Average daily dose of beta-blocker was lower with worse baseline New York Heart Association class. More patients of cardiologists achieved carvedilol doses > or = 25 mg twice daily, whereas in those of noncardiologists lower doses were more common. Relative risk of HF hospitalizations or all-cause death was significantly lower with higher doses of beta-blocker., Conclusions: Beta-blocker dosing in community HF appears lower than in randomized clinical trials, especially when prescribed by noncardiologists. At all doses, patients taking the beta-blocker carvedilol have a lower incidence of death and HF hospitalization than those discontinuing it, regardless of physician type in the community setting.

Heart failure (HF) in the community differs meaningfully from that in clinical trials, particularly the higher prevalence of patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) typically excluded from clinical trials, thus limiting knowledge of their responsiveness to beta-blocker therapy. From a community-based registry of 4,280 patients with HF starting treatment with the beta blocker carvedilol, we compared characteristics, carvedilol titration, and outcomes of patients according to LVEF >40% or <40% (as in clinical trials) and across the spectrum of LVEF <21%, 21% to 30%, 31% to 40%, and >40%. Patients with preserved EF (LVEF >40%) were older and more often women and hypertensive. Lower LVEF was associated with worse functional class and more HF hospitalizations in the previous year. Carvedilol dose decreased with increasing LVEF. Hospitalization rates for HF related inversely to LVEF before starting carvedilol therapy and decreased from the previous year in all LVEF groups during follow-up. Although 1-year mortality rate decreased from 8% with LVEF < or =20% to 6% with LVEF >40%, adjusted hazard ratios were not significantly different across LVEF groups. Thus, characteristics of community patients with HF vary across the spectrum of LVEF. Patients with HF and preserved EF treated with carvedilol in the community improve symptomatically and experience fewer HF hospitalizations after initiating carvedilol. In conclusion, without a control group, the effect of carvedilol on outcomes is not conclusive and trials of carvedilol in patients with HF and preserved EF should be undertaken.

Heart failure (HF) clinical trials suggest different responses of blacks and whites to beta-blockers. Differences between clinical trial and community settings may also have an impact. The Carvedilol Heart Failure Registry (COHERE) observed experience with carvedilol in 4280 patients with HF in a community setting. This analysis compares characteristics, outcomes, and carvedilol dosing of blacks and whites in COHERE. Compared with whites (n=3433), blacks (n=523) had more severe HF symptoms despite similar systolic function. At similar carvedilol maintenance doses, symptoms improved in 33% of blacks vs 28% of whites, while worsening in 10% and 11%, respectively (both nonsignificant), and HF hospitalization rates were reduced comparably in both groups (-58% vs -56%, respectively; both P<.001). Incidence and hazard ratios of death were similar in blacks and whites (6.9% vs 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.2 vs 1.0, P=.276). Thus carvedilol was similarly effective in blacks and whites with HF in the community setting, consistent with carvedilol clinical trials.

Risk factors for outcomes in heart failure (HF) were derived from populations in clinical trials, at hospital discharge, or in localized geographic or socioeconomic strata before the widespread use of beta blockers. This study observed 4,280 patients in a community-based HF registry for 1 year after completing carvedilol titration. Independent risk factors for death, hospitalization for HF, or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons other than HF were first identified by age-, gender-, and race-adjusted analyses, then by multivariate analysis adjusted simultaneously for all factors. Over this period, 7% of patients died, 11% were hospitalized for HF, 12% were hospitalized for other cardiovascular reasons, and 27% had > or =1 of these events. The most significant outcome predictors were New York Heart Association class III or IV, history of hospitalization for HF or other cardiovascular reasons, and angina pectoris, all associated with increased odds of having an adverse outcome (all p < or =0.001). The left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant outcome predictor by multivariate analysis. The odds ratio for an adverse outcome was significantly reduced for patients with hypertensive or idiopathic causes of HF and for those whose physicians had graduated from medical school > or =24 years earlier compared with <14 years earlier (all p <0.005). In conclusion, easily obtained historical information predicts clinical outcomes in patients with HF in the year after initiating carvedilol. In this unselected community population, these historical factors were better predictors of risk than the left ventricular ejection fraction.

Women and the elderly are underrepresented in clinical trials of heart failure (HF). The authors analyzed, by sex and age groups, a registry of 4280 community patients initiating carvedilol for HF. Women (n=1485) were older than men (n=2793) and had worse functional class with higher left ventricular ejection fraction and blood pressure. Women also had more HF hospitalizations, less use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lower doses of carvedilol. Nevertheless, during 1-year follow-up, both groups experienced greater than 40% reductions in HF hospitalizations (P<.001), with mortality of 7.3% in women vs 9.1% in men (P=.085). With increasing age, left ventricular ejection fraction, blood pressure, and functional class increased, whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and carvedilol doses decreased. HF hospitalizations fell at least 40% in all age groups after starting carvedilol (P<.001). Characteristics of women and the elderly with HF in the community suggest increased risk, but both populations respond well after initiating carvedilol.

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an important measure of ventricular function in the evaluation of heart failure. Immediate-release (IR) carvedilol twice daily has been shown to improve LVEF in subjects with ischemic and nonischemic chronic heart failure. A once-daily formulation, controlled-release (CR) carvedilol, is expected to improve quality of care through improved adherence as a result of the reduced frequency of dosing. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in subjects with stable chronic heart failure will compare the change in LVEF in patients receiving carvedilol IR with those receiving carvedilol CR. LVEF will be measured by 2-dimensional echocardiography at 6 months after entry into the maintenance period of the study drug. The secondary objectives of this study are to assess changes in left ventricular remodeling and function, to evaluate changes in brain natriuretic peptide levels, and to determine the incidence of all-cause and heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality after treatment with carvedilol CR or carvedilol IR.

Background: Reduced heart rate variability (HRV) has been shown to predict mortality in heart failure (CHF). The relationship between improved cardiac function and improvement in HRV has not been previously studied., Methods and Results: This was substudy of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial of carvedilol of four months duration. Analysis of HRV was performed on 24-hour Holter monitors obtained at baseline and completion of study. All subjects had symptomatic CHF and an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <0.35. Study medication was titrated over 1 month to 50 mg/day (< or =75 kg) or 100 mg/day (<75 kg). A total of 17 subjects were randomized to carvedilol and 12 to placebo. Treatment with carvedilol was associated with significant increases in total frequency power, very low frequency power, high frequency power, SDNN, the root-mean square of difference of successive RRs, and pNN50. Change in time and frequency domain measures of HRV had a positive correlation with change in LVEF and negative correlation with change in coronary sinus norepinephrine levels., Conclusion: Carvedilol therapy in patients with CHF significantly increased HRV. Change in HRV correlates to improved hemodynamics. This suggests that carvedilol therapy partially normalizes autonomic modulation of heart rate in patients with CHF.

Background: Beta-blockers are frequently used after cardiac transplantation for blood pressure control. There is no well-known interaction between beta-blockers and cyclosporine A (CsA). However, recent reports have suggested that carvedilol, but not metoprolol, modulates P-glycoprotein (P-gp), a membrane protein that regulates CsA absorption. We evaluated the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on CsA level when initiated in cardiac transplant recipients., Methods: Using our cardiac transplant database, we identified patients who were started on either carvedilol or metoprolol for blood pressure control. We then compared their CsA doses and levels before and within 2 weeks after the initiation of beta-blocker therapy., Results: We found 20 patients taking metoprolol and 12 patients taking carvedilol. With initiation of metoprolol, CsA level decreased in 12 patients and increased in 8 patients. The mean CsA level before and after metoprolol initiation was 236 ng/ml and 253 ng/ml, respectively (p = 0.50). In an attempt to maintain a therapeutic CsA level, the mean CsA dose was not significantly adjusted (from a mean of 293 mg/day to a mean of 294 mg/day; p = 0.92). In the Carvedilol Group, CsA level increased in 10 of 12 patients. The mean CsA level before the initiation of carvedilol was 257 ng/ml. The mean CsA level after carvedilol initiation was 380 ng/ml (p = 0.009). In an attempt to maintain a therapeutic CsA level, the mean CsA dose was reduced by 10%, from a mean of 319 mg/day to a mean of 288 mg/day (p = 0.004)., Conclusion: Carvedilol, but not metoprolol, was associated with a significant increase in CsA levels after initiation in cardiac transplant recipients. Although carvedilol and CsA do not interact at the level of cytochrome P450 system, it appears that carvedilol influences CsA levels through its effects on P-gp. An average reduction of 10% is necessary on the CsA dose upon initiation of carvedilol, and close follow-up of the level is essential.

Background: beta-Blockers reduce morbidity and mortality rates in heart failure (HF) clinical trials, but it is unknown whether these findings persist in the community setting., Methods: A registry was created to survey tolerability and outcomes during initiation and 1-year follow-up of beta-blocker treatment with carvedilol in patients with HF treated by cardiologists (CARD) and primary care physicians (PCP) in the community., Results: A total 4280 patients were enrolled (3121 by 259 CARD, 1159 by 129 PCP). Patient age averaged 67 +/- 13 years; 35% were women and 12% were black. The left ventricular ejection fraction averaged 31 +/- 12; New York Heart Association class was II-III in 86% and IV in 3%. Patients of PCP had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, were older, and more frequently were female, black, diabetic, hypertensive, and in New York Heart Association class III/IV. Minimal difficulty titrating carvedilol was noted by >80% of CARD and PCP. Significantly more CARD-treated patients reached carvedilol doses of 25 mg twice daily (49% vs 27%). Kaplan-Meier all-cause mortality rate was 8.5% at 1 year and did not differ between CARD-treated and PCP-treated patients (8.2% vs 9.3%, P =.254). At least one HF hospitalization occurred in 11% of patients during follow-up, compared with 28% in the preceding year., Conclusions: Community-based physicians use carvedilol with success approaching that of clinical trials. Overall mortality rates and HF hospitalizations were in the same low range as in clinical trials. Thus, it appears that results of clinical trials with carvedilol for HF can be translated to the community setting.

The safety, tolerability, and hemodynamic effects of carvedilol in patients with heart failure were first studied in the mid 1990s. Positive results in these early trials led to 5 prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials-the Australia/New Zealand Heart Failure Collaborative Group (ANZ) study and the 4 component studies of the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. These studies were conducted to determine the clinical impact of long-term carvedilol therapy. Findings from these trials showed that carvedilol is a powerful therapy (1) in patients with chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, improving morbidity and mortality; and (2) in patients with symptomatic heart failure, improving LV ejection fraction, improving clinical status, and slowing disease progression, resulting in reduction of the combined risk of hospitalization and mortality. This article discusses the design, results, and clinical implications of these trials.

Patients with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction of ischemic or nonischemic etiology have shown improvement in morbidity and mortality with carvedilol therapy. In patients with symptomatic (New York Heart Association class II-IV) heart failure, carvedilol improves left ventricular ejection fraction and clinical status, and slows disease progression, reducing the combined risk of mortality and hospitalization. Despite the overwhelming evidence for their benefit, there continues to be a large treatment gap between those who would derive benefit and those who actually receive the drug. In this article, the pharmacology, clinical trial evidence, and the potential differences between carvedilol and other beta blockers are discussed. Carvedilol provides powerful therapy in the treatment of chronic heart failure caused by a variety of etiologies and in a wide array of clinical settings.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of milrinone and dobutamine in patients chronically treated with carvedilol., Background: Milrinone and dobutamine are used to manage decompensated heart failure, but their efficacy in patients on beta-blocker therapy was unknown., Methods: Twenty patients with decompensated heart failure were prospectively enrolled. Inotropic responses to milrinone (12.5, 25 or 50 microg/kg bolus infusions) or dobutamine (5, 10, 15 or 20 microg/kg/min infusions) were evaluated by right-heart catheterization., Results: Milrinone increased cardiac index (2.0-2.6 l/min/m2, P=0.0001) without significantly altering heart rate (70-75 bpm, P=0.19). Milrinone decreased mean pulmonary artery pressure (36-29 mm Hg, P=0.0001), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (24-18 mm Hg, P=0.0001) and mean arterial blood pressure (78-75 mm Hg, P=0.0002). Left ventricular stroke volume index increased in the milrinone group (31-35 ml/beat/m2, P=0.0001). Dobutamine produced an increase in cardiac index (2.4-3.3 l/min/m2, P=0.0001) only at doses that are not typically used to treat heart failure (15-20 microg/kg/min). At these doses, dobutamine increased heart rate (68-82 bpm, P=0.008), mean systemic pressure (90-117 mm Hg, P=0.0001) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (21-30 mm Hg, P=0.001). Dobutamine did not alter left ventricular stroke volume index or pulmonary capillary wedge pressure., Conclusions: Dobutamine and milrinone have different hemodynamic effects in patients treated chronically with carvedilol. These differences should be considered when selecting inotropic therapy for decompensated heart failure.

Background: The benefits of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers may be smaller in black patients than in patients of other races, but it is unknown whether race influences the response to carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure., Methods: In the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program, 217 black and 877 nonblack patients (in New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV and with a left ventricular ejection fraction of no more than 0.35) were randomly assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol (at doses of 6.25 to 50 mg twice daily) for up to 15 months. The effects of carvedilol on ejection fraction, clinical status, and major clinical events were retrospectively compared between black and nonblack patients., Results: As compared with placebo, carvedilol lowered the risk of death from any cause or hospitalization for any reason by 48 percent in black patients and by 30 percent in nonblack patients. Carvedilol reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (heart failure leading to death, hospitalization, or a sustained increase in medication) by 54 percent in black patients and by 51 percent in nonblack patients. The ratios of the relative risks associated with carvedilol for these two outcome variables in black as compared with nonblack patients were 0.74 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.34) and 0.94 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 2.05), respectively. Carvedilol also improved functional class, ejection fraction, and the patients' and physicians' global assessments in both the black patients and the nonblack patients. For all these measures of outcome and clinical status, carvedilol was superior to placebo within each racial cohort (P<0.05 in all analyses), and there was no significant interaction between race and treatment (P> 0.05 in all analyses)., Conclusions: The benefit of carvedilol was apparent and of similar magnitude in both black and nonblack patients with heart failure.

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.

Background: The success of beta-blocking agents in clinical trials of heart failure (HF) has led to a widespread call for their increased use, which assumes these agents will perform as well in the usual care setting. Given the traditional contraindication of the use of beta-blocking agents in HF, and their perception as difficult to use in HF, observing how they perform in the usual care setting could be critical in accelerating their widespread application. Carvedilol is the only beta-blocking agent currently approved in the United States for use in HF., Methods: The Coreg (brand of carvedilol; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA) Heart Failure Registry (COHERE) is intended to collect data on outcomes and other clinical variables in a typical HF population and to observe experience with carvedilol in the hands of community practitioners. COHERE does not include any specific patient selection or exclusion criteria. The decision to use carvedilol is entirely at the discretion of the participant physician, based on evidence of HF as judged by assessments the practitioner usually uses. All patients will be followed for 1 year, with information on outcomes and other clinical variables collected and analyzed at baseline, the end of titration, and at 6 and 12 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose. About 600 participant physicians selected to be as representative as possible of the community practice setting will enroll approximately 6,000 patients., Conclusions: COHERE will be the first and largest prospective observational experience with a new treatment, ie, carvedilol, in patients with HF managed in the usual care setting and should provide valuable information about this new treatment in this environment compared with the more rigid clinical trials setting.

We and others have previously shown that carvedilol improves left ventricular (LV) function and symptoms in chronic heart failure. This improvement in LV function has also been shown to be associated with an improvement in survival. This study evaluates the effect of carvedilol on LV mass, geometry, and degree of mitral regurgitation (MR). In 59 patients with symptomatic heart failure and LV ejection fraction <0.35, previously randomized to either treatment with carvedilol or placebo, we evaluated LV mass, geometry, and degree of MR over the time period of carvedilol treatment. LV mass decreased as early as 4 months into the treatment protocol and continued to decrease over a period of 1 year. LV geometry, defined by the length/diameter ratio, and severity of MR also improved with 4 months of therapy. Thus, compared with placebo treatment, carvedilol decreases LV mass while improving cardiac geometry and decreasing MR in patients with chronic heart failure. These changes occur in association with an improvement in LV systolic function. This process begins by 4 months of treatment and continues for 12 months.

Current knowledge of the mechanisms contributing to progression of heart failure suggests that therapies that limit or interfere with the consequences of neurohormonal activation and improve myocardial energetics appear to be most beneficial. Carvedilol, a nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker with peripheral vasodilating properties, reduces mortality, slows progression of disease, and improves quality of life in patients with heart failure when added to standard therapy. When administered according to recommended guidelines, carvedilol is well tolerated. Clinical guidelines on the use of carvedilol in heart failure are provided.

This study investigated the effects of carvedilol on right ventricular (RV) volume and systolic function in chronic heart failure patients. Carvedilol treatment resulted in a significant improvement of RV ejection fraction and systolic performance, which paralleled the improvement of systolic function demonstrated in the left ventricle.

Background: Many patients remain markedly symptomatic despite optimal current therapy for heart failure. Beta-blockers have often been viewed as contraindicated in this group because of their potential adverse short-term effects on cardiac function., Methods and Results: One hundred thirty-one patients with severe congestive heart failure were enrolled into a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the vasodilating beta-blocker carvedilol. All patients had symptomatic, advanced heart failure while on standard triple therapy, as evidenced by a mean ejection fraction of 0.22, marked reduction in distance traveled in a 6-minute corridor walk test, and severe impairment in quality of life measured by the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. After a 2-week, open-label test of 6.25 mg twice daily carvedilol, 105 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either carvedilol (up to 25 mg twice daily, n = 70) or matching placebo (n = 35) for 6 months while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor remained constant. Ten patients (8%) did not complete the open-label period because of adverse events and 11.4% in both the carvedilol and placebo groups dropped out in the double-blind phase. The study was terminated early by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board and follow-up evaluation was therefore aborted before the projected number of patients and follow-up time was achieved. Quality of life, which was the primary endpoint, improved similarly in the carvedilol and placebo groups, whereas the global assessment by the physicians and the patient exhibited a better response to carvedilol (P < .05). Hospitalization and mortality rate were too low to evaluate a difference, and exercise time and New York Heart Association classification did not change significantly in response to the drug. Left ventricular ejection fraction rose significantly (+0.09) in the carvedilol group compared with the placebo group (+0.02, P = .004)., Conclusion: The beta-blocker carvedilol can be safely employed in patients with severe heart failure. Improved left ventricular function with a trend for some improvement in symptoms combined with the experience with the drug in the larger population of less severe patients in this multicenter trial suggests that carvedilol may have a favorable long-term effect in heart failure of diverse severity.

The left-ventricular (LV) functional, hemodynamic, and antiadrenergic effects of metoprolol, bucindolol, and carvedilol have been compared in three concurrent placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with symptomatic idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. All three drugs were well tolerated, all produced at least moderate degrees of beta-blockade as assessed by reduction in exercise heart rate, and all increased the left-ventricular ejection fraction. Compared with the beta 1-selective, second-generation compound metoprolol, the third-generation compounds bucindolol and carvedilol lowered indices of adrenergic activity and tended to improve LV function to a greater extent. In patients with chronic heart failure there may be important therapeutic response differences between second- and third-generation beta-blocking agents.

Background: We tested the hypothesis that carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure due to left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 366) who had mildly symptomatic heart failure with an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 0.35, had minimal functional impairment (defined as the ability to walk 450 to 550 m on a 6-minute walk test), and were receiving optimal standard therapy, including ACE inhibitors, were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 232) or placebo (n = 134) and followed up for 12 months. The primary end point was clinical progression, defined as death due to heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or a sustained increase in heart failure medications. Clinical progression of heart failure occurred in 21% of placebo patients and 11% of carvedilol patients, reflecting a 48% (P = .008) reduction in the primary end point of heart failure progression (relative risk, 0.52; CI, 0.32 to 0.85). This effect of carvedilol was not influenced by sex, age, race, cause of heart failure, or baseline LVEF. Carvedilol also significantly improved several secondary end points, including LVEF, heart failure score, NYHA functional class, and the physician and patient global assessments. Carvedilol reduced all-cause mortality but had no effects on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure scale, the distance walked in 9 minutes on a self-powered treadmill, or cardiothoracic index. The drug was well tolerated., Conclusions: Carvedilol, when added to standard therapy, including an ACE inhibitor, reduces clinical progression in patients who are only mildly symptomatic with well-compensated heart failure.

Background: The basic pharmacology of the third-generation beta-blocking agent carvedilol differs considerably from second-generation compounds such as metoprolol. Moreover, carvedilol may produce different, ie, more favorable, clinical effects in chronic heart failure. For these reasons, we compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on adrenergic activity, receptor expression, degree of clinical beta-blockade, hemodynamics, and left ventricular function in patients with mild or moderate chronic heart failure., Methods and Results: The effects of carvedilol versus metoprolol were compared in two concurrent placebo-controlled trials with carvedilol or metoprolol that had common substudies focused on adrenergic, hemodynamic, and left ventricular functional measurements. All subjects in the substudies had chronic heart failure resulting from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Carvedilol at 50 to 100 mg/d produced reductions in exercise heart rate that were similar to metoprolol at 125 to 150 mg/d, indicating comparable degrees of beta-blockade. Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with greater improvement in New York Heart Association functional class. Although there were no significant differences in hemodynamic effects between the carvedilol and metoprolol active-treatment groups, carvedilol tended to produce relatively greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction, stroke volume, and stroke work compared with changes in the respective placebo groups. Carvedilol selectively lowered coronary sinus norepinephrine levels, an index of cardiac adrenergic activity, whereas metoprolol did not lower coronary sinus norepinephrine and actually increased central venous norepinephrine levels. Finally, metoprolol was associated with an increase in cardiac beta-receptor density, whereas carvedilol did not change cardiac beta-receptor expression., Conclusions: The third-generation beta-blocking agent carvedilol has substantially different effects on left ventricular function, hemodynamics, adrenergic activity, and beta-receptor expression than dose the second-generation compound metoprolol. Some or all of these differences may explain the apparent differences in clinical results between the two compounds.

Background: We conducted a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial designed to establish the efficacy and safety of carvedilol, a "third-generation" beta -blocking agent with vasodilator properties, in chronic heart failure., Methods and Results: Three hundred forty-five subjects with mild to moderate, stable chronic heart failure were randomized to receive treatment with placebo, 6.25 mg BID carvedilol (low-dose group), 12.5 mg BID carvedilol (medium-dose group), or 25 mg BID carvedilol (high-dose group). After a 2- to 4-week up-titration period, subjects remained on study medication for a period of 6 months. The primary efficacy parameter was submaximal exercise measured by two different techniques, the 6-minute corridor walk test and the 9-minute self-powered treadmill test. Carvedilol had no detectable effect on submaximal exercise as measured by either technique. However, carvedilol was associated with dose-related improvements in LV function (by 5, 6, and 8 ejection fraction [EF] units in the low-, medium-, and high-dose carvedilol groups, respectively, compared with 2 EF units with placebo, P < .001 for linear dose response) and survival (respective crude mortality rates of 6.0%, 6.7%, and 1.1% with increasing doses of carvedilol compared with 15.5% in the placebo group, P < .001). When the three carvedilol groups were combined, the all-cause actuarial mortality risk was lowered by 73% in carvedilol-treated subjects (P < .001). Carvedilol also lowered the hospitalization rate (by 58% to 64%, P = .01) and was generally well tolerated., Conclusions: In subjects with mild to moderate heart failure from systolic dysfunction, carvedilol produced dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate.

Recent evidence has shown that improvement in left ventricular (LV) systolic function in patients with New York Heart Association class II to III heart failure occurs with beta-adrenergic blocking agents. However the specific effects on LV diastolic function have been subjected to only limited examination. This study investigated the effects of the combined beta blocker/vasodilator, carvedilol, on systolic and diastolic LV performance in dilated cardiomyopathy. Thirty-six patients with New York Heart Association II to III heart failure and LV ejection fraction < or = 0.35 were entered into either arm of this placebo-controlled, double-blind 4-month trial. Twenty-one subjects were entered into the carvedilol treatment arm and 15 patients were entered into the placebo arm in a 3:2 ratio. Carvedilol therapy resulted in a significant improvement in LV ejection fraction, from 0.22 +/- 0.02 to 0.30 +/- 0.02 when compared with the placebo group (0.19 +/- 0.02 to 0.21 +/- 0.02 at baseline and after 4 months of therapy, respectively; p = 0.0001). However, no significant change in radionuclide parameters of LV diastolic function, including peak filling rate or time to peak filling rate, was observed. LV end-diastolic volume index did not change with carvedilol therapy, whereas end-diastolic volume index increased in the placebo group, although the difference between groups at 4 months was significant (p = 0.02). In conjunction with these changes, end-systolic volume index was smaller at 4 months after carvedilol treatment compared with that of the placebo group (p = 0.04). Thus, these results demonstrate that in moderate chronic heart failure, systolic LV performance improves but diastolic LV function does not improve when compared with placebo after treatment with carvedilol.

Background: Controlled clinical trials have shown that beta-blockers can produce hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement in chronic heart failure, but the effect of these drugs on survival has not been determined., Methods: We enrolled 1094 patients with chronic heart failure in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified program, in which patients were assigned to one of the four treatment protocols on the basis of their exercise capacity. Within each of the four protocols patients with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure with left ventricular ejection fractions < or = 0.35 were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 398) or the beta-blocker carvedilol (n = 696); background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor remained constant. Patient were observed for the occurrence death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons during the following 6 months, after the beginning (12 months for the group with mild heart failure)., Results: The overall mortality rate was 7.8 percent in the placebo group and 3.2 percent in the carvedilol group; the reduction in risk attributable to carvedilol was 65 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39 to 80 percent; P < 0.001). This finding led the Data and Safety Monitoring Board to recommend termination of the study before its scheduled completion. In addition, as compared with placebo, carvedilol therapy was accompanied by a 27 percent reduction in the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (19.6 percent vs. 14.1 percent, P = 0.036), as well as a 38 percent reduction in the combined risk of hospitalization or death (24.6 percent vs, 15.8 percent, P < 0.001). Worsening heart failure as an adverse reaction during treatment was less frequent in the carvedilol than in the placebo group., Conclusions: Carvedilol reduces the risk or death as well as the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in patients with heart failure who are receiving treatment with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor.

Objectives: This study assessed the safety and efficacy of carvedilol in patients with heart failure caused by idiopathic or ischemic cardiomyopathy., Background: Carvedilol is a mildly beta 1-selective beta-adrenergic blocking agent with vasodilator properties. Beta-blockade may be beneficial in patients with heart failure, but the effects of carvedilol are not known., Methods: Sixty patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association functional classes II to IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.35 were enrolled in the study. All patients tolerated challenge with carvedilol, 3.125 mg twice a day, and were randomized to receive carvedilol (n = 36) versus placebo (n = 24). Study medication was titrated over 1 month from 6.25 to 25 mg twice a day (< 75 kg) or 50 mg twice a day (> 75 kg) and continued for 3 months. One placebo-treated and two carvedilol-treated patients did not complete the study., Results: Carvedilol therapy resulted in a significant reduction in heart rate and mean pulmonary artery and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures and a significant increase in stroke volume and left ventricular stroke work. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased 52% in the carvedilol group (from 0.21 to 0.32, p < 0.0001 vs. placebo group). Carvedilol-treated patients also reported a significant lessening of heart failure symptoms (p < 0.05 vs. placebo group). Submaximal exercise duration tended to increase with carvedilol therapy (from 688 +/- 31 s to 871 +/- 32 s), but this change was not significantly different from that with placebo therapy by between-group analysis. Peak oxygen consumption during maximal exercise did not change., Conclusions: Long-term carvedilol therapy improves rest cardiac function and lessens symptoms in patients with heart failure.

Background: Small-scale clinical investigations have demonstrated that single doses of beta-blocking agents can improve left ventricular function in heart failure from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC). The purpose of this multicenter clinical trial was to determine the dose-effect characteristics of beta-blockade in a heart failure population that includes ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (ISCD)., Methods and Results: Bucindolol is a nonselective beta-blocking agent with mild vasodilatory properties. One hundred forty-one subjects with class II or III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 0.40, and background therapy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, digoxin, and diuretics were given an initial challenge dose of bucindolol 12.5 mg. One hundred thirty-nine subjects (99 with IDC, 40 with ISCDC) tolerated challenge and were randomized to treatment with placebo or bucindolol 12.5 mg/d (low dose), 50 mg/d (medium dose), or 200 mg/d (high dose). At the end of 12 weeks, left ventricular function and other parameters were measured and compared with baseline values. There was a dose-related improvement in left ventricular function in bucindolol-treated subjects. In the high-dose bucindolol group, radionuclide-measured LVEF improved by 7.8 EF units (%) compared with 1.8 units in the placebo group (P < .05), and compared with the placebo group, a greater percentage of subjects had an increase in LVEF by > or = 5 units. In contrast, all three bucindolol doses prevented deterioration of myocardial function as defined by an LVEF decline of > or = 5 units., Conclusions: In heart failure from systolic dysfunction, beta-blockade with bucindolol produces a dose-related improvement in and prevents deterioration of left ventricular function.

Background: We investigated the effects of bucindolol, a nonselective, non-ISA beta-blocker with mild-vasodilatory properties, in patients with congestive heart failure from ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (ISCDC, n = 27) and compared the results with those in subjects with heart failure from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC, n = 22)., Methods and Results: Patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive 12 weeks' treatment with either bucindolol or placebo, with randomization stratified for IDC or ISCDC: Invasive (right heart catheterization) and noninvasive (echo, MUGA, central venous norepinephrine, exercise treadmill studies, and symptom scores) tests of heart failure severity were determined at baseline and end of the study. For all subjects (ISCDC plus IDC), relative to placebo treatment, bucindolol-treated patients had significant improvement in ejection fraction, left ventricular size and filling pressure, stroke work index, symptom score, and central venous norepinephrine. However, most of these differences could be attributed to improvement in the IDC subgroup, as the only parameter with a statistically significant degree of improvement in the bucindolol-treated ISCDC subgroup was left ventricular size., Conclusions: We conclude that beta-blockade may produce quantitatively different degrees of response in different kinds of heart muscle disease.

Beta-adrenergic blockade represents a promising therapeutic approach to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Bucindolol, a new beta-blocker, showed favorable effects in a short-term (3 month) trial in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. To assess long-term response, 20 study patients (7 of 9 patients previously assigned to the placebo group and 13 of 14 patients previously assigned to bucindolol therapy) received long-term bucindolol therapy and were followed up for a mean of 23 +/- 4 months (range 17 to 30). The mean patient age was 49 years (range 29 to 66) and the median duration of disease was 11 months (range 1 to 190). Ten patients were in functional class II and 10 were in class III; 15 patients were men. At the end of the common follow-up time, all 20 patients were alive, 17 continued to receive bucindolol (mean dose 176 mg/day, range 25 to 200), and 2 underwent cardiac transplantation. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased from a baseline value of 25 +/- 8% to 35 +/- 13% (n = 19 pairs, p less than 0.001). Functional class improved in 12, was unchanged in 5 and deteriorated in 3 (p = 0.056). Exercise time was maintained (9.4 +/- 3.1 versus 9.1 +/- 3.5 min, n = 19, p = NS), as was maximal oxygen uptake (19.2 +/- 4.9 versus 18.8 +/- 5.7 ml/kg per min, n = 19, p = NS). Thus, long-term bucindolol therapy leads to substantial increases in ejection fraction and to improved functional class while stable exercise performance is maintained.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Purpose: Bucindolol is a potent nonselective beta-blocking agent with vasodilatory properties. In this study, we evaluated the effects of long-term bucindolol therapy in the treatment of heart failure from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy., Patients and Methods: Patients were eligible for enrollment if they had symptomatic heart failure, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.40. All patients received an initial test dose of 12.5 mg bucindolol orally every 12 hours for two or three doses. Patients tolerating the test dose were randomly assigned (double-blind) to receive bucindolol or placebo in a 3:2 ratio. Study medication was begun at a dose of 12.5 mg orally every 12 hours and gradually increased over a 1-month period until either a maximum tolerated dose or a target dose of 100 mg every 12 hours was reached. Study medication was then continued for an additional 2 months., Results: A total of 24 patients were enrolled into the study. Twenty-three patients tolerated bucindolol test challenge; 14 were randomized to receive bucindolol, and nine were randomly assigned to receive placebo. The placebo group (age 56 +/- 2 years) was significantly older than the bucindolol group (46 +/- 3 years), but by all other clinical and hemodynamic parameters the two groups were comparable. Twenty-two of 23 patients completed the study. Patients treated with bucindolol had significant improvements in clinical heart failure symptoms and in resting hemodynamic function, including an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (0.26 +/- 0.02 to 0.35 +/- 0.09, p = 0.003), cardiac index (2.2 +/- 0.1 to 2.5 +/- 0.4 L/minute/m2, p = 0.014), and left ventricular stroke work index (25 +/- 3 to 35 +/- 7 g.m/m2, p = 0.002) and a decrease in pulmonary artery wedge pressure (17 +/- 3 to 10 +/- 5 mm Hg, p = 0.005) and heart rate (86 +/- 3 to 75 +/- 9 beats/minute, p = 0.012). Patients treated with bucindolol also had a significant increase in exercise left ventricular ejection fraction (0.26 +/- 0.03 to 0.32 +/- 0.14, p = 0.015) and reduction in questionnaire-measured symptoms (p = 0.007) and New York Heart Association functional class (p less than 0.001). However, total treadmill exercise duration and maximal oxygen consumption with exercise did not change. No changes in rest or exercise parameters were observed in the placebo-treated group. Central venous plasma norepinephrine concentration decreased significantly in the bucindolol-treated group (423 +/- 79 to 212 +/- 101 pg/mL, p = 0.010), but was unchanged in the placebo-treated group., Conclusion: Bucindolol is well tolerated in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure, and therapy for 3 months is associated with improved resting cardiac function, improved heart failure symptoms, and a reduction in venous norepinephrine concentration.