on behalf of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in Heart Failure InvestigatorsBackground-This study was designed to determine whether physician-led remote telemedical management (RTM) compared with usual care would result in reduced mortality in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Methods and Results-We enrolled 710 stable chronic HF patients in New York Heart Association functional class II or III with a left ventricular ejection fraction Յ35% and a history of HF decompensation within the previous 2 years or with a left ventricular ejection fraction Յ25%. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to RTM or usual care. Remote telemedical management used portable devices for ECG, blood pressure, and body weight measurements connected to a personal digital assistant that sent automated encrypted transmission via cell phones to the telemedical centers. The primary end point was death from any cause. The first secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF. Baseline characteristics were similar between the RTM (nϭ354) and control (nϭ356)

AimsRemote patient management (telemonitoring) may help to detect early signs of cardiac decompensation, allowing optimization of and adherence to treatments in chronic heart failure (CHF). Two meta-analyses have suggested that telemedicine in CHF can reduce mortality by 30-35%. The aim of the TIM-HF study was to investigate the impact of telemedical management on mortality in ambulatory CHF patients. MethodsCHF patients [New York Heart Association (NYHA) II/III, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%] with a history of cardiac decompensation with hospitalization in the past or therapy with intravenous diuretics in the prior 24 months (no decompensation required if LVEF ≤ 25%) were randomized 1:1 to an intervention group of daily remote device monitoring (electrocardiogram, blood pressure, body weight) coupled with medical telephone support or to usual care led by the patients' local physician. In the intervention group, 24/7 physician-led medical support was provided by two central telemedical centres. A clinical event committee blinded to treatment allocation assessed cause of death and reason for hospitalization. The primary endpoint was total mortality. The first secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization due to heart failure. Other secondary endpoints included cardiovascular mortality, all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations (all time to first event) as well as days lost due to heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death (in % of follow-up time), and changes in quality of life and NYHA class. Overall, 710 CHF patients were recruited. The mean follow-up was 21.5 + 7.2 months, with a minimum of 12 months. Perspective

AimsVarious beta-blockers with distinct pharmacological profiles are approved in heart failure, yet they remain underused and underdosed. Although potentially of major public health importance, whether one agent is superior in terms of tolerability and optimal dosing has not been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the tolerability and clinical effects of two proven beta-blockers in elderly patients with heart failure.Methods and resultsWe performed a double-blind superiority trial of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in 883 elderly heart failure patients with reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in 41 European centres. The primary endpoint was tolerability, defined as reaching and maintaining guideline-recommended target doses after 12 weeks treatment. Adverse events and clinical parameters of patient status were secondary endpoints. None of the beta-blockers was superior with regards to tolerability: 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20–28] of patients in the bisoprolol arm and 25% (95% CI 21–29) of patients in the carvedilol arm achieved the primary endpoint (P= 0.64). The use of bisoprolol resulted in greater reduction of heart rate (adjusted mean difference 2.1 b.p.m., 95% CI 0.5–3.6, P= 0.008) and more, dose-limiting, bradycardic adverse events (16 vs. 11%; P= 0.02). The use of carvedilol led to a reduction of forced expiratory volume (adjusted mean difference 50 mL, 95% CI 4–95, P= 0.03) and more, non-dose-limiting, pulmonary adverse events (10 vs. 4%; P < 0.001).ConclusionOverall tolerability to target doses was comparable. The pattern of intolerance, however, was different: bradycardia occurred more often in the bisoprolol group, whereas pulmonary adverse events occurred more often in the carvedilol group.This study is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN34827306.

The present study reveals a novel genetic susceptibility locus that clearly underlines the role of genetically driven, inflammatory processes in the pathogenesis of idiopathic DCM.