PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marc A Pfeffer

Publications and source records attributed to Marc A Pfeffer.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

An international perspective on heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction complicating myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry.

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.

Female↗

Cardiac remodeling in systemic hypertension.

Experimental and clinical studies provide evidence that hypertension is causally related to adverse cardiac structural changes, such as LA enlargement, LV hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis, and functional changes inclusive of LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction. These changes are induced by both hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors. There is accumulating evidence from several small and large clinical trials that various classes of antihypertensive therapy prevent and regress LVH and myocardial fibrosis. Prevention and reversal of LVH are associated with an improvement in cardiac function and with a decline in risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Prevention of LVH should be a priority in subjects with hypertension. In patients with hypertensive heart disease, the components of therapy must comprise optimization of BP and regression of LVH. Future targets of therapy in hypertensive heart disease may include regression of myocardial fibrosis, normalization of LA size, and improvement in LV diastolic function.

Animals↗

Cardiovascular risk in chronic kidney disease.

National Kidney Foundation guidelines define chronic kidney disease (CKD) as persistent kidney damage (confirmed by renal biopsy or markers of kidney damage) and/or glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL/min/1.73m2 for greater than three months. Patients with CKD experience higher mortality and adverse cardiovascular (CV) event rates, which remains significant after adjustment for conventional coronary risk factors. This progressive CV risk associated with worsening renal function may be explained by other factors that become increasingly important with renal decline. In this regard, more investigation of nonconventional factors that have received a lot of attention includes associations with inflammation, albuminuria, reduced vascular compliance, and homocysteine. In addition, individuals with CKD encounter the problem of "therapeutic nihilism," in which there is a lack of appropriate risk factor modification and intervention, despite established awareness of their high cardiovascular risk. Several studies suggest that these individuals derive as much, if not more, benefit from evidence-based cardiovascular therapies and strategies. Greater educational efforts are needed to reduce this therapeutic gap.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

Predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and hypertension: a case for albuminuria.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy represent a particularly high-risk group for both adverse cardiac as well as renal events. Using the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) cohort, our objective was to determine baseline characteristics of individuals with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and hypertension predictive for cardiac events. IDNT identified 1715 individuals with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and hypertension having serum creatinine of 1.0 to 3.0 mg/dL and urinary albumin excretion rates > or = 900 mg/day. A cardiovascular (CV) composite was used consisting of CV death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for heart failure, stroke, amputation, and coronary and peripheral revascularization. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, 41 baseline characteristics determined a priori were analyzed for their potential relationship to risk of experiencing a CV event. Of the 1715 individuals, 518 (30.2%) had at least one of the CV composite end points. Older age, male gender, longer duration of diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, history of CHF, high urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, and low serum albumin were strong predictors for CV events; of these, prior history of CVD (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.63-2.45; P < 0.0001) and high urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (RR 1.29 per natural log unit, 95% CI 1.13-1.48; P = 0.0002) at baseline were highly predictive for cardiovascular events. In conclusion, among individuals with hypertension and diabetic nephropathy, both the degree of albuminuria and lower serum albumin levels provide additional prognostic information concerning cardiovascular risk, in addition to traditional coronary risk factors.

Albuminuria↗

Pharmacologic advances in long-term heart failure management.

Advances in the pharmacologic management of patients with heart failure during the last several decades have been mainly guided by the results of well-conducted, randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). As a consequence of these RCTs, we now know that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers should be concomitantly administered to patients who tolerate these therapies with the expectation that reductions in cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for management of heart failure will be accomplished. New therapeutic modalities must now be proven to add incremental clinical benefits to these establish therapies. This challenge is currently being addressed with aldosterone blocking agents as well as angiotensin receptor blockers. This article discusses the major RCTs in this field and places the new trials in perspective.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both.

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.

Aged↗

Predictors of late development of heart failure in stable survivors of myocardial infarction: the CARE study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the predictors of heart failure (HF) development in long-term survivors of myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Modern strategies of acute MI care have resulted in an increasing proportion of survivors at heightened risk of future non-fatal events, including HF. METHODS: We assessed the risk of developing HF in 3860 stable MI patients without a previous history of HF, who were enrolled in the Cholesterol And Recurrent Events (CARE) trial a median of 10 months post MI. Baseline characteristics of patients who did or did not develop HF during the five years of observation were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients (6.3%) developed HF in a linear pattern at a rate of 1.3%/year. Heart failure development markedly increased the risk of death (hazard ratio 10.2, 95% confidence interval 7.7 to 13.5). Fifty-seven patients (23.5%) who developed HF had a recurrent MI between enrollment and the onset of HF, increasing the risk fivefold. The most important predictors of HF were age and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other predictors included diabetes, history of hypertension, previous MI, and baseline heart rate. Moderate exercise three or more times per week was independently associated with a 30% lower risk of HF. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure post MI occurs in a time-dependent fashion, which is usually not a direct consequence of a detectable interim MI. Patients who experience late-onset HF have a 10-fold increased risk of death compared with other MI survivors. Baseline characteristics can risk stratify patients at high risk of subsequent HF.

Age Factors↗

Azithromycin for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease events: the WIZARD study: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Several lines of evidence have implied an association between Chlamydia pneumoniae infection and atherogenesis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of 12 weeks of antibiotic therapy on coronary heart disease events in patients with stable coronary artery disease and known C pneumoniae exposure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 7747 adults with previous myocardial infarction that had occurred at least 6 weeks previously (median, 2.6 years) and a C pneumoniae IgG titer of 1:16 or more. Patients were recruited from 271 clinical practices in North America, Europe, Argentina, and India, from October 10, 1997, to July 22, 2001. INTERVENTION: The patients received either azithromycin (600 mg/d for 3 days during week 1, then 600 mg/wk during weeks 2-12; n = 3879) or placebo (n = 3868). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary event was the first occurrence of death from any cause, nonfatal reinfarction, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina. Patients were followed up until 1038 events accrued. RESULTS: After a median of 14 months of follow-up, there was no significant risk reduction in the likelihood of a primary event with azithromycin vs placebo (7% [95% confidence interval, -5% to 17%], P =.23). Analysis of hazard ratios suggested early benefits of azithromycin on the primary event and on death or reinfarction, but these decreased over time. There were no significant risk reductions for any of the components of the primary end point including death (8%), recurrent myocardial infarction (7%), revascularization procedures (5%), or hospitalizations for angina (-1%). Adverse events related to study drug were reported by 13.2% of those randomized to receive azithromycin, predominantly a result of diarrhea, compared with 4.6% randomized to receive placebo, and resulted in discontinuation of drug in 1.6% of those taking azithromycin and 0.4% taking placebo. CONCLUSION: Among stable patients with previous myocardial infarction and with evidence of C pneumoniae exposure, a 3-month course of azithromycin did not significantly reduce the clinical sequelae of coronary heart disease.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

Determinants of elevated pulse pressure in middle-aged and older subjects with uncomplicated systolic hypertension: the role of proximal aortic diameter and the aortic pressure-flow relationship.

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and is thought to be secondary to elastin fragmentation with secondary collagen deposition and stiffening of the aortic wall, leading to a dilated, noncompliant vasculature. METHODS AND RESULTS: By use of calibrated tonometry and pulsed Doppler, arterial stiffness and pulsatile hemodynamics were assessed in 128 subjects with uncomplicated systolic hypertension (supine systolic pressure > or =140 mm Hg off medication) and 30 normotensive control subjects of comparable age and gender. Pulse-wave velocity was assessed from tonometry and body surface measurements. Characteristic impedance (Zc) was calculated from the ratio of change in carotid pressure and aortic flow in early systole. Effective aortic diameter was assessed by use of the water hammer equation. Hypertensives were heavier (P<0.001) and had higher PP (P<0.001), which was attributable primarily to higher Zc (P<0.001), especially in women. Pulse-wave velocity was higher in hypertensives (P=0.001); however, this difference was not significant after adjustment for differences in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (P>0.153), whereas increased Zc remained highly significant (P<0.001). Increased Zc in women and in hypertensive men was attributable to decreased effective aortic diameter, with no difference in wall stiffness at comparable MAP and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated PP in systolic hypertension was independent of MAP and was attributable primarily to elevated Zc and reduced effective diameter of the proximal aorta. These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis of secondary aortic degeneration, dilation, and wall stiffening but rather suggest that aortic function may play an active role in the pathophysiology of systolic hypertension.

Adult↗

Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin-receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity. METHODS: In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82-0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79-0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia. INTERPRETATION: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects.

Adolescent↗

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers have favourable effects on haemodynamic measurements, neurohumoral activity, and left-ventricular remodelling when added to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to find out whether these drugs improve clinical outcome. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and November, 1999, we enrolled 2548 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower, and who were being treated with ACE inhibitors. We randomly assigned patients candesartan (n=1276, target dose 32 mg once daily) or placebo (n=1272). At baseline, 55% of patients were also treated with beta blockers and 17% with spironolactone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The median follow-up was 41 months. 483 (38%) patients in the candesartan group and 538 (42%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.96], p=0.011; covariate adjusted p=0.010). Candesartan reduced each of the components of the primary outcome significantly, as well as the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. The benefits of candesartan were similar in all predefined subgroups, including patients receiving baseline beta blocker treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of candesartan to ACE inhibitor and other treatment leads to a further clinically important reduction in relevant cardiovascular events in patients with CHF and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction.

Adolescent↗

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60-0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups. INTERPRETATION: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

Aged↗

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Half of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but few treatments have specifically been assessed in such patients. In previous studies of patients with CHF and low LVEF or vascular disease and preserved LVEF, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is beneficial. We investigated the effect of addition of an angiotensin-receptor blocker to current treatments. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and July, 2000, we randomly assigned 3023 patients candesartan (n=1514, target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=1509). Patients had New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and LVEF higher than 40%. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or admission to hospital for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 36.6 months. 333 (22%) patients in the candesartan and 366 (24%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.03], p=0.118; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.74-1.0], p=0.051). Cardiovascular death did not differ between groups (170 vs 170), but fewer patients in the candesartan group than in the placebo group were admitted to hospital for CHF once (230 vs 279, p=0.017) or multiple times. Composite outcomes that included non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke showed similar results to the primary composite (388 vs 429; unadjusted 0.88 [0.77-1.01], p=0.078; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.75-0.99], p=0.037). INTERPRETATION: Candesartan has a moderate impact in preventing admissions for CHF among patients who have heart failure and LVEF higher than 40%.

Adolescent↗

Left ventricular remodeling and ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The relation between left ventricular (LV) remodeling and ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction is poorly documented. We investigated the relations between LV size, hypertrophy, and function and ventricular arrhythmias in 263 patients from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study, using quantitative 2D echocardiography and ambulatory ECG monitoring after myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Transthoracic 2D echocardiograms and arrhythmia monitoring were performed at baseline (mean, 11 days) and 1 and 2 years after infarction. LV size, short-axis muscle (mass) area (LVMA), and function were quantified from 2D echocardiograms. The prevalence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and frequent ventricular ectopy (premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] >10/h) was assessed from ambulatory ECG. VT and PVCs >10/h occurred in 20% and 29% of patients at baseline, in 22% and 35% at 1 year and 23% and 39% at 2 years, respectively. VT and PVCs >10/h at baseline and 1 and 2 years were significantly related to LV size, LVMA, and function. Furthermore, changes in LV size and function from baseline to 2 years predicted both VT and PVCs >10/h. The study was underpowered to detect treatment effect of ACE inhibitors and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers but did not alter the relations between ventricular arrhythmias, LV size, and function. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative echocardiographic assessment of LV size, LVMA, and function and changes in these measurements over time predict ventricular arrhythmias after infarction. Altered LV architecture and function during postinfarction LV remodeling provide an important substrate for triggering high-grade ventricular arrhythmias.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes have increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are protective in type 1 diabetes. However, no definitive studies have examined the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. The primary outcomes of the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial were doubling of serum creatinine levels, end-stage renal disease, and death from any cause. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy who received conventional antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (irbesartan) or a calcium-channel blocker (amlodipine), or placebo. DESIGN: Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a median follow-up of 2.6 years. A time event analysis was used. SETTING: 209 centers in the Americas, Europe, Israel, and Australasia. PARTICIPANTS: 1715 adults with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and hypertension; serum creatinine levels of 89 micromol/L (1.0 mg/dL) to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in women and 106 micromol/L (1.2 mg/dL) to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in men; and urinary protein excretion rates of at least 900 mg/d. INTERVENTION: Treatment with irbesartan, amlodipine, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Time to cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, strokes, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The three groups were not statistically different in the composite of cardiovascular events. Among the components of the composite, there was a trend toward a decrease in strokes in patients receiving amlodipine versus those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.22]; P = 0.18). Likewise, patients receiving amlodipine had a significantly lower rate of myocardial infarction when compared with placebo recipients (hazard ratio, 0.58 [CI, 0.37 to 0.92]; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients receiving irbesartan had a significantly lower incidence of congestive heart failure when compared with placebo recipients (hazard ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.52 to 1.00]; P = 0.048) or amlodipine recipients (hazard ratio, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.87]; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The composite cardiovascular event rate did not differ in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy treated with irbesartan, amlodipine, or placebo in addition to conventional antihypertensive therapy.

Amlodipine↗