Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial

Aims We studied the influence of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and beta-blocker dose on outcome in the 2599 out of 3029 patients in Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) who were alive and on study drug at 4 months after randomization (time of first visit on maintenance therapy). Methods and results By multivariable analysis, baseline HR, baseline SBP, and their change after 4 months were not independently related to subsequent outcome. In a multivariable analysis including clinical variables, HR above and SBP below the median value achieved at 4 months predicted subsequent increased mortality [relative risk (RR) for HR>68 b.p.m. 1.333; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.152-1.542; P120 mmHg 0.78; 95% CI 0.671-0.907; P<0.0013]. Achieving target beta-blocker dose was associated with a better outcome (RR 0.779; 95% CI 0.662-0.916; P<0.0025). The superiority of carvedilol as compared to metoprolol tartrate was maintained in a multivariable model (RR 0.767; 95% CI 0.663-0.887; P=0.0004) and there was no interaction with HR, SBP, or beta-blocker dose. Conclusion Beta-blocker dose, HR, and SBP achieved during beta-blocker therapy have independent prognostic value in heart failure. None of these factors influenced the beneficial effects of carvedilol when compared with metoprolol tartrate at the pre-defined target doses used in COME

Prevalence and Predictors of Out-of-Target LDL Cholesterol 1 to 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction. A Subanalysis From the EYESHOT Post-MI Registry

Background: There is an incomplete understanding of the prevalence and predictors of attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal after myocardial infarction (MI). Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of achievement of LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL, to identify the baseline features associated with suboptimal lipid control, and to assess the use of LDL-C-lowering drug therapies (LLT) beyond the first year after MI. Methods: The EYESHOT Post-MI was a prospective, cross-sectional, Italian registry, which enrolled patients presenting to cardiologist 1 to 3 years after MI. In this retrospective post-hoc analysis, patients were categorized in 2 groups according to the achievement or not of the LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the baseline features associate with LDL-C &gt;= 70 mg/dL. Results: The study population included 903 patients (mean age 65.5 +/- 11.5 years). Among them, LDL-C was &gt;= 70 mg/dL in 474 (52.5%). Male sex (p = 0.031), hypertension (p = 0.024), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (p = 0.016) and high education level (p = 0.008) were higher in the LDL-C &lt; 70 group. At multivariable analysis, low education level was an independent predictor of LDL-C &gt;= 70 mg/dL (OR:1.582; 95%CI, 1.156-2.165; p = 0.004). Conversely, hypertension increased the probability to achieve the LDL-C goal (OR:0.650; 95%CI, 0.443-0.954; p = 0.028). Among off-target patients, LLT was not modified in the majority of cases (67.3%), intensified in 85 (18.6%), and actually reduced in 63 patients (13.8%). Conclusions: In patients presenting to cardiologists 1 to 3 years from the last MI event, LDL-C is not under control in a large proportion of patients, particularly in those with a low education level or without hypertension. LLT is underused in this very-high-risk setting

Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial

Background: β blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. Methods: In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II–IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0·35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. Findings: The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0·26 (0·07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·74–0–93], p=0–0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0·94 [0·86–1–02], p=0·122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. Interpretation: Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol