No abstract

In patients with HF of both reduced and preserved EF, the influences of readily available predictors of mortality can be quantified in an integer score accessible by an easy-to-use website www.heartfailurerisk.org. The score has the potential for widespread implementation in a clinical setting.

No abstract

UK Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union, Netherlands Heart Foundation, and Mach-Gaensslen Foundation.

No abstract

Background-Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events. We used data from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials to assess the influence of nonfatal hospitalizations for HF on subsequent mortality rates in a broad spectrum of HF patients. Methods and Results-In the present study, 7599 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were randomized to placebo or candesartan. We assessed the risk of death after discharge from a first hospitalization for HF using time-updated Cox proportional-hazards models on 7572 patients for whom discharge data were available. Of 7572 patients, 1455 (19%) had at least 1 HF hospitalization, and 586 of 1819 deaths occurred after discharge from an HF hospitalization. The mortality rate was increased after HF hospitalizations, even after adjustment for baseline predictors of death (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.83 to 3.50). Longer duration of HF hospitalization enhanced the risk of dying, as did repeat HF hospitalizations. Moreover, risk of death was highest within a month of discharge and then declined progressively over time, particularly for death resulting from HF progression and for sudden cardiac death. We observed a similar pattern of risk associated with all-cause hospitalization, although the magnitude was less than that with HF hospitalization. Conclusions-In patients with chronic HF, the risk of death is greatest in the early period after discharge after a hospitalization for HF and is directly related to the duration and frequency of HF hospitalizations. These findings suggest a role for increased surveillance in the early postdischarge period of greatest vulnerability after an HF admission.

Abstract-Spironolactone is recommended as fourth-line therapy for essential hypertension despite few supporting data for this indication. We evaluated the effect among 1411 participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm who received spironolactone mainly as a fourth-line antihypertensive agent for uncontrolled blood pressure and who had valid BP measurements before and during spironolactone treatment. Among those who received spironolactone, the mean age was 63 years (SD: Ϯ8 years), 77% were men, and 40% had diabetes. Spironolactone was initiated a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.0 to 4.4 years) after randomization and added to a mean of 2.9 (SD: Ϯ0.9) other antihypertensive drugs. The median duration of spironolactone treatment was 1.3 years (interquartile range: 0.6 to 2.6 years). The median dose of spironolactone was 25 mg (interquartile range: 25 to 50 mg) at both the start and end of the observation period. During spironolactone therapy, mean blood pressure fell from 156.9/85.3 mm Hg (SD: Ϯ18.0/11.5 mm Hg) by 21.9/9.5 mm Hg (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.0/9.0 to 10.1 mm Hg; PϽ0.001); the BP reduction was largely unaffected by age, sex, smoking, and diabetic status. Spironolactone was generally well tolerated; 6% of participants discontinued the drug because of adverse effects. The most frequent adverse events were gynecomastia or breast discomfort and biochemical abnormalities (principally hyperkaliemia), which were recorded as adverse events in 6% and 2% of participants, respectively. In conclusion, spironolactone effectively lowers blood pressure in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by a mean of Ϸ3 other drugs. Although nonrandomized and not placebo controlled, these data support the use of spironolactone in uncontrolled hypertension.

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.