PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John McMurray

Publications and source records attributed to John McMurray.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Effects of aldosterone receptor blockade in patients with mild-moderate heart failure taking a beta-blocker.

AIMS: Spironolactone improves prognosis in severe heart failure (HF). We investigated its effects in patients with mild-moderate HF treated with an ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-month comparison of placebo and spironolactone (25 mg daily) in 40 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I (20%), II (70%) or III (10%), with a left ventricular ejection fraction of <40%. The mean (standard error) changes from baseline in the spironolactone and placebo groups were, respectively: i) B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) -53.4(22.2) pg/mL and +3.3(12.1) pg/mL, P=0.04, ii) pro-collagen type III N-terminal amino peptide (PIIINP) -0.6(0.2) micromol/L and +0.02(0.2) micromol/L, P=0.02 and iii) creatinine +10.7(3.2) micromol/L and -0.3(2.6) micromol/L, P=0.01. Compared with placebo, spironolactone therapy was associated with a reduction in self-reported health-related quality of life: change in visual analog score: -6 (3) vs. +6 (4); P=0.01. No differences were observed on other biochemical, neurohumoral, exercise and autonomic function assessments. CONCLUSION: In patients with mild-moderate HF, spironolactone reduced neurohumoral activation (BNP) and a marker of collagen turnover (PIIINP) but impaired renal function and quality of life. The benefit-risk ratio of aldosterone blockade in mild HF is uncertain and requires clarification in a large randomised trial.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

Treatment of chronic heart failure: a comparison between the major guidelines.

Because of rapid advances in the treatment of chronic heart failure, four important guidelines, including those from the European Society of Cardiology, have recently been updated. This review compares and contrasts the levels of evidence and classes of recommendation given to each of the key pharmacological and device therapies advocated by these guidelines. Possible explanations for discrepancies between the guidelines are discussed. Future approaches that might clarify the grade of evidence allocated and class of recommendation made are also described.

Cardiovascular Agents↗
PubMed2006

The effect of valsartan, captopril, or both on atherosclerotic events after acute myocardial infarction: an analysis of the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT).

OBJECTIVES: We attempted to compare the effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on atherosclerotic events. BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs interrupt the renin-angiotensin system by distinct mechanisms. It is not clear whether ARBs reduce atherosclerotic events such as myocardial infarction (MI) like ACE inhibitors. This evidence gap may reflect the nature of the studies conducted, to date. Placebo-controlled studies enrolled cohorts at low risk of atherosclerotic events (e.g., patients with chronic heart failure, most treated with an ACE inhibitor). One of the main active controlled trials was confounded by a blood pressure difference between treatments. METHODS: We compared the effects of captopril, valsartan, and their combination on atherosclerotic events in 14,703 patients randomized in the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). RESULTS: The number of individuals adjudicated as having a fatal or non-fatal MI in the captopril group was 559 (total investigator reported events 798), 587 (796) in the valsartan group, and 554 (756) in the combination group; valsartan versus captopril, p = 0.651 (0.965); combination versus captopril, p = 0.187 (0.350). Overall, all atherosclerotic events examined occurred at a similar frequency in the captopril and valsartan groups. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin receptor blockers appear to be as effective as ACE inhibitors in reducing atherosclerotic events, even when used in addition to other secondary preventive treatments. These data, although not conclusive, also support the hypothesis that adding an ARB to an ACE inhibitor may have a small additional anti-infarction effect, a possibility that needs to be prospectively tested.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Aldosterone blockade in post-acute myocardial infarction heart failure.

Development of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) significantly increases mortality post acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Aldosterone contributes to the development and progression of HF post AMI, and major guidelines now recommend aldosterone blockade in this setting. However, lack of practical experience with aldosterone blockade may make clinicians hesitant to use these therapies. This review is based on a consensus cardiology conference that occurred in May 2005 (New York City) concerning these topics. Potential barriers to the use of aldosterone blockade are discussed and an algorithm for appropriate in-hospital pharmacologic management of AMI with LVSD and/or HF is presented.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2006

The treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction ("diastolic heart failure").

Unlike heart failure with a low ejection fraction, there is no evidence-based treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction which improves clinical outcomes. Indeed, the only evidence for any treatment effect comes from small studies with verapamil where this drug increased exercise capacity and reduced a heart failure score. Large trials are presently underway which are examining the effect of treatment with an ACE inhibitor, ARB and aldosterone antagonist in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

Association of QRS duration and outcomes after myocardial infarction: the VALIANT trial.

BACKGROUND: Prolongation of the QRS duration has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes among heart failure (HF) patients. The association of QRS duration with clinical outcomes in the post-myocardial infarction (MI) setting is less well defined. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic significance of QRS duration prolongation on initial electrocardiogram after acute MI. METHODS: QRS duration was measured in 403 patients with MI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, signs or symptoms of HF, or both, who were enrolled in the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) echo study. The cohort was divided into quartiles of QRS duration (<75 ms, 75-88 ms, 89-108 ms, >108 ms). The number of clinical events were determined and compared across the groups. RESULTS: Increasing QRS duration is associated with a higher incidence of HF, sudden death (SD), and cardiovascular (CV) death (P-trend <0.05) but not with stroke or recurrent MI. The univariate relative risks for HF, SD, and CV death with increasing QRS duration quartiles were 1.31 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64), 1.57 (95% CI, 1.03-2.40), and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.03-1.66), respectively, but QRS duration did not remain independently predictive of adverse outcome after adjusting for the 10 most predictive baseline covariates. Baseline end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were larger and ejection fraction was lower in the higher QRS quartile groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged QRS duration, even within the normal range, is associated with larger ventricular volumes, reduced systolic function, and an increased risk for development of HF, SD, and CV death after MI but appears to be a marker, rather than an independent predictor, for increased risk.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Heart failure on admission and the risk of stroke following acute myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry.

AIMS: We sought to assess the relative contribution of heart failure (HF) on admission for an acute myocardial infarction (MI) to the subsequent in-hospital stroke risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) registry enrolled 5573 consecutive MI patients at 84 international sites from 1999 to 2001. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for stroke and adjusted for baseline characteristics, Killip Class, and risk factors for stroke, such as diabetes and prior HF. In-hospital stroke occurred in 81 (1.5%) patients. HF was present on admission in 38% of patients who developed a stroke and in 24% who did not (P=0.001). Older age (OR 1.03 increase/year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.04), Killip Class III (OR 1.66, CI 0.86-3.19) or IV (OR 4.85, CI 1.69-13.93), history of hypertension (OR 1.73, CI 1.06-2.82), and history of stroke (OR 1.89, CI 1.06-3.37) were more common in patients who had in-hospital stroke. In-hospital mortality in patients with and without stroke was 27.2 and 6.5%, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with stroke after MI have a dismal prognosis. The presence of HF on admission for an acute MI increases in-hospital stroke risk. HF treatments may modify the risk of stroke.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Antiarrhythmic effect of carvedilol after acute myocardial infarction: results of the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial.

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.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2005

Clinical effects of endothelin receptor antagonism with bosentan in patients with severe chronic heart failure: results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Endothelin receptor antagonism produces favorable short-term hemodynamic effects in heart failure, but the clinical effects of longer term therapy have not been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion and a left ventricular ejection fraction <35% were randomly assigned (double-blind) to placebo (n = 126) or the endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan, titrated slowly (n = 121) or rapidly (n = 123) to a target dose of 500 mg twice daily. Treatment with the study drug was to be maintained for 26 weeks, whereas background medications for heart failure were kept constant. Safety concerns led to early termination of the trial when only 174 patients had had an opportunity to complete 26 weeks of therapy. Bosentan exerted no apparent benefit when all randomized patients were analyzed (P = .709). However, in the first 174 patients who were recruited at least 26 weeks before study termination and who could therefore be followed for the planned duration of the trial, patients in the bosentan groups were more likely to be improved (26% versus 19%) and were less likely to be worse (28% versus 43%), P = .045. When compared with placebo-treated patients, bosentan-treated patients had a increased risk of heart failure during the first month of treatment but a decreased risk of heart failure during the fourth, fifth, and sixth months of therapy. The major noncardiac adverse effects of bosentan included an increase in hepatic transaminases (in 15.6% of patients) and a decrease in hemoglobin (of about 1 g/L). CONCLUSION: Although bosentan exerted no favorable effects in the overall study, our findings suggest that the clinical responses to endothelin antagonism with bosentan in patients with severe chronic heart failure may be dependent on the duration of treatment.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

The irbesartan in heart failure with preserved systolic function (I-PRESERVE) trial: rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Although 40% to 50% of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) have relatively preserved systolic function (PSF), few trials have been conducted in this population and treatment guidelines do not include evidence-based recommendations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function (I-PRESERVE) is enrolling 4100 subjects with HF-PSF to evaluate whether 300 mg irbesartan is superior to placebo in reducing mortality and prespecified categories of cardiovascular hospitalizations. The principal inclusion criteria are age > or =60 years, heart failure symptoms, an ejection fraction > or =45%, and either hospitalization for heart failure within 6 months or corroborative evidence of heart failure or the substrate for diastolic heart failure. Additional secondary end points include cardiovascular mortality, cause-specific mortality and morbidity, change in New York Heart Association functional class, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-BNP measurements. Follow-up will continue until 1440 patients experience a primary end point. Substudies will evaluate changes in echocardiographic measurements and serum collagen markers. CONCLUSION: I-PRESERVE is the largest trial in this understudied area and will provide crucial information on the characteristics and course of the syndrome, as well as the efficacy of the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan.

Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers↗
PubMed2005

Patient perception of the effect of treatment with candesartan in heart failure. Results of the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient's final or closing visit. Patient's status was classified as "improved (score +1 to +7)", "unchanged (score 0)" or "deteriorated (score -1 to -7)" at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple "last visit carried forward" (LVCF) analysis and "worst rank carried forward" (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Practical recommendations for the use of ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure: putting guidelines into practice.

Surveys of prescribing patterns in both hospitals and primary care have usually shown delays in translating the evidence from clinical trials of pharmacological agents into clinical practice, thereby denying patients with heart failure (HF) the benefits of drug treatments proven to improve well-being and prolong life. This may be due to unfamiliarity with the evidence-base for these therapies, the clinical guidelines recommending the use of these treatments or both, as well as concerns regarding adverse events. ACE inhibitors have long been the cornerstone of therapy for systolic HF irrespective of aetiology. Recent trials have now shown that treatment with beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers also leads to substantial improvements in outcome. In order to accelerate the safe uptake of these treatments and to ensure that all eligible patients receive the most appropriate medications, a clear and concise set of clinical recommendations has been prepared by a group of clinicians with practical expertise in the management of HF. The objective of these recommendations is to provide practical guidance for non-specialists, in order to increase the use of evidenced based therapy for HF. These practical recommendations are meant to serve as a supplement to, rather than replacement of, existing HF guidelines.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2004

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function; epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis.

Recent cross-sectional, population-based echocardiographic studies show that about half of all patients with heart failure have preserved left ventricular systolic function (HF-PSF). Cohort studies of hospitalized patients show a smaller proportion of HF-PSF. Compared to those with reduced systolic function, patients with HF-PSF are more often female, older, less likely to have coronary artery disease, and more likely to have hypertension. Patients with HF-PSF are less symptomatic and receive different pharmacologic therapy than patients with reduced systolic function. Morbidity and mortality rates in patients with HF-PSF are high but not quite as high as in patients with reduced systolic function. Though much has recently been learned about the syndrome of HF-PSF, many questions remain to be answered, not least how it should be treated.

Adult↗