Controversies in the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94510/1/j.1527-5299.2003.00294.x.pd

Caveat anicula! Beware of quiet little old ladies: Demographic features, pharmacotherapy, readmissions and survival in a 10-year cohort of patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function

Objective--To determine whether heart failure with preserved systolic function (HFPSF) has different natural history from left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Design and setting--A retrospective analysis of 10 years of data (for patients admitted between 1 July 1994 and 30 June 2004, and with a study census date of 30 June 2005) routinely collected as part of clinical practice in a large tertiary referral hospital.Main outcome measures-- Sociodemographic characteristics, diagnostic features, comorbid conditions, pharmacotherapies, readmission rates and survival.Results--Of the 2961 patients admitted with chronic heart failure, 753 had echocardiograms available for this analysis. Of these, 189 (25%) had normal left ventricular size and systolic function. In comparison to patients with LVSD, those with HFPSF were more often female (62.4% v 38.5%; P = 0.001), had less social support, and were more likely to live in nursing homes (17.9% v 7.6%; P < 0.001), and had a greater prevalence of renal impairment (86.7% v 6.2%; P = 0.004), anaemia (34.3% v 6.3%; P = 0.013) and atrial fibrillation (51.3% v 47.1%; P = 0.008), but significantly less ischaemic heart disease (53.4% v 81.2%; P = 0.001). Patients with HFPSF were less likely to be prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (61.9% v 72.5%; P = 0.008); carvedilol was used more frequently in LVSD (1.5% v 8.8%; P < 0.001). Readmission rates were higher in the HFPSF group (median, 2 v 1.5 admissions; P = 0.032), particularly for malignancy (4.2% v 1.8%; P < 0.001) and anaemia (3.9% v 2.3%; P < 0.001). Both groups had the same poor survival rate (P = 0.912). Conclusions--Patients with HFPSF were predominantly older women with less social support and higher readmission rates for associated comorbid illnesses. We therefore propose that reduced survival in HFPSF may relate more to comorbid conditions than suboptimal cardiac management

Application of geographic modeling techniques to quantify spatial access to health services before and after an acute cardiac event: The Cardiac Accessibility and Remoteness Index for Australia (ARIA) Project

Background: Access to cardiac services is essential for appropriate implementation of evidence-based therapies to improve outcomes. The Cardiac Accessibility and Remoteness Index for Australia (Cardiac ARIA) aimed to derive an objective, geographic measure reflecting access to cardiac services. Methods: An expert panel defined an evidence-based clinical pathway. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a numeric/alpha index was developed at two points along the continuum of care. The acute category (numeric) measured the time from the emergency call to arrival at an appropriate medical facility via road ambulance. The aftercare category (alpha) measured access to four basic services (family doctor, pharmacy, cardiac rehabilitation, and pathology services) when a patient returned to their community. Results: The numeric index ranged from 1 (access to principle referral center with cardiac catheterization service ≤ 1 hour) to 8 (no ambulance service, > 3 hours to medical facility, air transport required). The alphabetic index ranged from A (all 4 services available within 1 hour drive-time) to E (no services available within 1 hour). 13.9 million (71%) Australians resided within Cardiac ARIA 1A locations (hospital with cardiac catheterization laboratory and all aftercare within 1 hour). Those outside Cardiac 1A were over-represented by people aged over 65 years (32%) and Indigenous people (60%). Conclusion: The Cardiac ARIA index demonstrated substantial inequity in access to cardiac services in Australia. This methodology can be used to inform cardiology health service planning and the methodology could be applied to other common disease states within other regions of the world

Levosimendan vs. dobutamine: outcomes for acute heart failure patients on β-blockers in SURVIVE†

Aims Many chronic heart failure (CHF) patients take beta-blockers. When such patients are hospitalized for decompensation, it remains unclear how ongoing beta-blocker treatment will affect outcomes of acute inotrope therapy. We aimed to assess outcomes of SURVIVE patients who were on beta-blocker therapy before receiving a single intravenous infusion of levosimendan or dobutamine. Methods and results Cox proportional hazard regression revealed all-cause mortality benefits of levosimendan treatment over dobutamine when the SURVIVE population was stratified according to baseline presence/absence of CHF history and use/non-use of beta-blocker treatment at baseline. All-cause mortality was tower in the CHF/levosimendan group than in the CHF/dobutamine group, showing treatment differences by hazard ratio (HR) at days 5 (3.4 vs. 5.8%; HR, 0.58, CI 0.33-1.01, P = 0.05) and 14 (7.0 vs. 10.3%; HR, 0.67, CI 0.45-0.99, P = 0.045). For patients who used beta-blockers (n = 669), mortality was significantly lower for levosimendan than dobutamine at day 5 (1.5 vs. 5.1% deaths; HR, 0.29; CI 0.11-0.78, P = 0.01). Conclusion Levosimendan may be better than dobutamine for treating patients with a history of CHF or those on beta-blocker therapy when they are hospitalized with acute decompensations. These findings are preliminary but important for planning future studies

Classification of the level of evidence in international guidelines for acute and chronic heart failure

Over the centuries, medicine has evolved as a system of care dependent on magic and superstition, fashion, a large placebo effect, self-confident physicians, the fears of patients, and some astute observations. More recently, attempts have begun to put medical care on a more scientific basis by making observations on large numbers of patients to evolve rational constructs for why treatments are effective or fail and ultimately by putting theory and observation to the test in randomized controlled trials. It will be a long time before the science of medicine has eliminated, replaced, or endorsed the current practices and dogma of medical treatment, but a start must be made if future generations of patients are to avoid potentially unnecessary or harmful traditional treatments. Chronic aspirin therapy (1, 2, 3, 4), cosmetic angioplasty (5), and intravenous inotropic therapy (6,7) are just three examples of unproven and potentially wasteful or harmful interventions that are widely practiced due to the failure of doctors to understand the evidence presented to the