Rosuvastatin but not ezetimibe improves endothelial function in patients with heart failure, by mechanisms independent of lipid lowering.

INTRODUCTION: Congestive heart failure (HF) is characterised by increased proinflammatory stimulation and impaired endothelial function. Statin treatment exerts a beneficial effect on endothelial function and inflammatory process in patients with atherosclerosis. However, its effect in patients with HF is not well studied. Therefore, in the present study we compared the effect of short-term treatment with rosuvastatin or ezetimibe on endothelial function in patients with HF. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo controlled, cross-over trial, 22 patients with HF were randomised to receive ezetimibe 20 mg/d or rosuvastatin 10 mg/d for 4 weeks, with 4 weeks wash-out period between the two interventions. Endothelial function was evaluated by flow mediated dilation (FMD) in the brachial artery at the beginning and at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: There was no change in the baseline brachial diameter after treatment with either ezetimibe (p=NS) or rosuvastatin (p=NS). However, there was a significant improvement of FMD in the rosuvastatin group (p<0.05) but not in the ezetimibe group (p=NS). The changes in lipid levels were similar between groups (p=NS). The change in FMD was not significantly correlated with the decrease of serum LDL in either the ezetimibe or rosuvastatin treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin improves endothelial function in patients with congestive heart failure, by mechanisms independent of lipid-lowering. On the contrary, lipid-lowering treatment achieved by ezetimibe is unable to affect endothelial function in these patients. These findings indicate a direct beneficial effect of statins in patients with congestive heart failure, further to lipid-lowering

Rosuvastatin but not ezetimibe improves endothelial function in patients with heart failure, by mechanisms independent of lipid lowering.

INTRODUCTION: Congestive heart failure (HF) is characterised by increased proinflammatory stimulation and impaired endothelial function. Statin treatment exerts a beneficial effect on endothelial function and inflammatory process in patients with atherosclerosis. However, its effect in patients with HF is not well studied. Therefore, in the present study we compared the effect of short-term treatment with rosuvastatin or ezetimibe on endothelial function in patients with HF. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo controlled, cross-over trial, 22 patients with HF were randomised to receive ezetimibe 20 mg/d or rosuvastatin 10 mg/d for 4 weeks, with 4 weeks wash-out period between the two interventions. Endothelial function was evaluated by flow mediated dilation (FMD) in the brachial artery at the beginning and at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: There was no change in the baseline brachial diameter after treatment with either ezetimibe (p=NS) or rosuvastatin (p=NS). However, there was a significant improvement of FMD in the rosuvastatin group (p<0.05) but not in the ezetimibe group (p=NS). The changes in lipid levels were similar between groups (p=NS). The change in FMD was not significantly correlated with the decrease of serum LDL in either the ezetimibe or rosuvastatin treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin improves endothelial function in patients with congestive heart failure, by mechanisms independent of lipid-lowering. On the contrary, lipid-lowering treatment achieved by ezetimibe is unable to affect endothelial function in these patients. These findings indicate a direct beneficial effect of statins in patients with congestive heart failure, further to lipid-lowering

Outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted in hospitals with or without catheterization laboratory: Results from the HELIOS registry

To compare the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction patients in hospitals with and without catheterization laboratory. The Hellenic Infarction Observation Study was a countrywide registry of acute myocardial infarction, conducted during 2005-2006. The registry enrolled 1840 patients with myocardial infarction from 31 hospitals with a proportional representation of all types of hospitals and of all geographical areas. Out of these patients, 645 (35%) were admitted in 11 hospitals with and 1195 (65%) in 20 hospitals without catheterization laboratory. Patients admitted in hospitals with catheterization laboratory in comparison with patients admitted in hospitals without were younger (66 ± 14 vs. 68 ±13, P &lt; 0.004) with less diabetes (27 vs. 33%, P &lt; 0.001), but without other baseline differences (female 27 vs. 25%, prior myocardial infarction 20 vs. 17%, Killip class &gt;1 22 vs. 23%). Reperfusion rates for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were 67% (43% lytic, 24% primary percutaneous coronary interventions) versus 56% (55% lytic, 1% percutaneous coronary interventions; P &lt; 0.01). In-hospital outcomes in hospitals with versus in hospitals without laboratory were: mortality 6.5 versus 8.3% (NS), stroke 2.2 versus 1.1% (NS), major bleeding 1.1 versus 0.6% (NS), and heart failure 11 versus 16% (P &lt; 0.01). In multivariate regression analysis, being admitted in a hospital without catheterization laboratory was not an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.93, P = 0.505). Although the majority of acute myocardial infarction patients was admitted in hospitals without catheterization laboratory, these patients do not have a survival disadvantage, provided they are treated with lytic therapy, medical secondary prevention drugs, and eventual revascularization according to current guidelines. © 2009, European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved