搜索结果：failure

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction may be changing as a result of changes in population demographics and in the prevalence and treatment of risk factors for heart failure. Changes in the prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction may contribute to changes in the natural history of heart failure. We performed a study to define secular trends in the prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction among patients at a single institution over a 15-year period. METHODS: We studied all consecutive patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure at Mayo Clinic Hospitals in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from 1987 through 2001. We classified patients as having either preserved or reduced ejection fraction. The patients were also classified as community patients (Olmsted County residents) or referral patients. Secular trends in the type of heart failure, associated cardiovascular disease, and survival were defined. RESULTS: A total of 6076 patients with heart failure were discharged over the 15-year period; data on ejection fraction were available for 4596 of these patients (76 percent). Of these, 53 percent had a reduced ejection fraction and 47 percent had a preserved ejection fraction. The proportion of patients with the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction increased over time and was significantly higher among community patients than among referral patients (55 percent vs. 45 percent). The prevalence rates of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes among patients with heart failure increased significantly over time. Survival was slightly better among patients with preserved ejection fraction (adjusted hazard ratio for death, 0.96; P=0.01). Survival improved over time for those with reduced ejection fraction but not for those with preserved ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction increased over a 15-year period, while the rate of death from this disorder remained unchanged. These trends underscore the importance of this growing public health problem.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, but their effects in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction are uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II-IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 415 of 2997 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 of 2991 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). This effect was mainly related to a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the empagliflozin group. The effects of empagliflozin appeared consistent in patients with or without diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (407 with empagliflozin and 541 with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P<0.001). Uncomplicated genital and urinary tract infections and hypotension were reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Preserved ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057951).

BACKGROUND: Mortality and morbidity are higher among patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure than among those with heart failure alone. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation who did not have a response to antiarrhythmic drugs, had unacceptable side effects, or were unwilling to take these drugs to undergo either catheter ablation (179 patients) or medical therapy (rate or rhythm control) (184 patients) for atrial fibrillation in addition to guidelines-based therapy for heart failure. All the patients had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, and an implanted defibrillator. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 37.8 months, the primary composite end point occurred in significantly fewer patients in the ablation group than in the medical-therapy group (51 patients [28.5%] vs. 82 patients [44.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.87; P=0.007). Significantly fewer patients in the ablation group died from any cause (24 [13.4%] vs. 46 [25.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86; P=0.01), were hospitalized for worsening heart failure (37 [20.7%] vs. 66 [35.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.83; P=0.004), or died from cardiovascular causes (20 [11.2%] vs. 41 [22.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.84; P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure was associated with a significantly lower rate of a composite end point of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure than was medical therapy. (Funded by Biotronik; CASTLE-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00643188 .).

BACKGROUND: Patients with congestive heart failure have a high mortality rate and are also hospitalized frequently. We studied the effect of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, on mortality and hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure and ejection fractions less than or equal to 0.35. METHODS: Patients receiving conventional treatment for heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285) at doses of 2.5 to 20 mg per day in a double-bind trial. Approximately 90 percent of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional classes II and III. The follow-up averaged 41.4 months. RESULTS: There were 510 deaths in the placebo group (39.7 percent), as compared with 452 in the enalapril group (35.2 percent) (reduction in risk, 16 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 26 percent; P = 0.0036). Although reductions in mortality were observed in several categories of cardiac deaths, the largest reduction occurred among the deaths attributed to progressive heart failure (251 in the placebo group vs. 209 in the enalapril group; reduction in risk, 22 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 6 to 35 percent). There was little apparent effect of treatment on deaths classified as due to arrhythmia without pump failure. Fewer patients died or were hospitalized for worsening heart failure (736 in the placebo group and 613 in the enalapril group; risk reduction, 26 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 18 to 34 percent; P less than 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enalapril to conventional therapy significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with chronic congestive heart failure and reduced ejection fractions.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).

BACKGROUND: Extreme obesity is recognized to be a risk factor for heart failure. It is unclear whether overweight and lesser degrees of obesity also pose a risk. METHODS: We investigated the relation between the body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) and the incidence of heart failure among 5881 participants in the Framingham Heart Study (mean age, 55 years; 54 percent women). With the use of Cox proportional-hazards models, the body-mass index was evaluated both as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable (normal, 18.5 to 24.9; overweight, 25.0 to 29.9; and obese, 30.0 or more). RESULTS: During follow-up (mean, 14 years), heart failure developed in 496 subjects (258 women and 238 men). After adjustment for established risk factors, there was an increase in the risk of heart failure of 5 percent for men and 7 percent for women for each increment of 1 in body-mass index. As compared with subjects with a normal body-mass index, obese subjects had a doubling of the risk of heart failure. For women, the hazard ratio was 2.12 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.51 to 2.97); for men, the hazard ratio was 1.90 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.30 to 2.79). A graded increase in the risk of heart failure was observed across categories of body-mass index. The hazard ratios per increase in category were 1.46 in women (95 percent confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.72) and 1.37 in men (95 percent confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.67). CONCLUSIONS: In our large, community-based sample, increased body-mass index was associated with an increased risk of heart failure. Given the high prevalence of obesity in the United States, strategies to promote optimal body weight may reduce the population burden of heart failure.

The heart failure syndrome has first been described as an emerging epidemic about 25 years ago. Today, because of a growing and ageing population, the total number of heart failure patients still continues to rise. However, the case mix of heart failure seems to be evolving. Incidence has stabilized and may even be decreasing in some populations, but alarming opposite trends have been observed in the relatively young, possibly related to an increase in obesity. In addition, a clear transition towards heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction has occurred. Although this transition is partially artificial, due to improved recognition of heart failure as a disorder affecting the entire left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum, links can be made with the growing burden of obesity-related diseases and with the ageing of the population. Similarly, evidence suggests that the number of patients with heart failure may be on the rise in low-income countries struggling under the double burden of communicable diseases and conditions associated with a Western-type lifestyle. These findings, together with the observation that the mortality rate of heart failure is declining less rapidly than previously, indicate we have not reached the end of the epidemic yet. In this review, the evolving epidemiology of heart failure is put into perspective, to discern major trends and project future directions.

BACKGROUND: Actions of angiotensin II may contribute to the progression of heart failure despite treatment with currently recommended drugs. We therefore evaluated the long-term effects of the addition of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan to standard therapy for heart failure. METHODS: A total of 5010 patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg of valsartan or placebo twice daily. The primary outcomes were mortality and the combined end point of mortality and morbidity, defined as the incidence of cardiac arrest with resuscitation, hospitalization for heart failure, or receipt of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator therapy for at least four hours. RESULTS: Overall mortality was similar in the two groups. The incidence of the combined end point, however, was 13.2 percent lower with valsartan than with placebo (relative risk, 0.87; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.009), predominantly because of a lower number of patients hospitalized for heart failure; 455 (18.2 percent) in the placebo group and 346 (13.8 percent) in the valsartan group (P<0.001). Treatment with valsartan also resulted in significant improvements in NYHA class, ejection fraction, signs and symptoms of heart failure, and quality of life as compared with placebo (P<0.01). In a post hoc analysis of the combined end point and mortality in subgroups defined according to base-line treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or beta-blockers, valsartan had a favorable effect in patients receiving neither or one of these types of drugs but an adverse effect in patients receiving both types of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan significantly reduces the combined end point of mortality and morbidity and improves clinical signs and symptoms in patients with heart failure, when added to prescribed therapy. However, the post hoc observation of an adverse effect on mortality and morbidity in the subgroup receiving valsartan, an ACE inhibitor, and a beta-blocker raises concern about the potential safety of this specific combination.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid antagonists improve survival among patients with chronic, severe systolic heart failure and heart failure after myocardial infarction. We evaluated the effects of eplerenone in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and mild symptoms. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 2737 patients with New York Heart Association class II heart failure and an ejection fraction of no more than 35% to receive eplerenone (up to 50 mg daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up period of 21 months. The primary outcome occurred in 18.3% of patients in the eplerenone group as compared with 25.9% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.74; P<0.001). A total of 12.5% of patients receiving eplerenone and 15.5% of those receiving placebo died (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93; P=0.008); 10.8% and 13.5%, respectively, died of cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Hospitalizations for heart failure and for any cause were also reduced with eplerenone. A serum potassium level exceeding 5.5 mmol per liter occurred in 11.8% of patients in the eplerenone group and 7.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone, as compared with placebo, reduced both the risk of death and the risk of hospitalization among patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00232180.).

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists improve the prognosis for patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone in patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3445 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more to receive either spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 320 of 1722 patients in the spironolactone group (18.6%) and 351 of 1723 patients in the placebo group (20.4%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.04; P=0.14). Of the components of the primary outcome, only hospitalization for heart failure had a significantly lower incidence in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (206 patients [12.0%] vs. 245 patients [14.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.04). Neither total deaths nor hospitalizations for any reason were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Treatment with spironolactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7%, vs. 9.1% in the placebo group) but reduced hypokalemia. With frequent monitoring, there were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, a serum creatinine level of 3.0 mg per deciliter (265 μmol per liter) or higher, or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; TOPCAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094302.).

We introduce the concept of unreliable failure detectors and study how they can be used to solve Consensus in asynchronous systems with crash failures. We characterise unreliable failure detectors in terms of two properties—completeness and accuracy. We show that Consensus can be solved even with unreliable failure detectors that make an infinite number of mistakes, and determine which ones can be used to solve Consensus despite any number of crashes, and which ones require a majority of correct processes. We prove that Consensus and Atomic Broadcast are reducible to each other in asynchronous systems with crash failures; thus, the above results also apply to Atomic Broadcast. A companion paper shows that one of the failure detectors introduced here is the weakest failure detector for solving Consensus [Chandra et al. 1992].

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Aldosterone is important in the pathophysiology of heart failure. In a doubleblind study, we enrolled 1663 patients who had severe heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of no more than 35 percent and who were being treated with an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, a loop diuretic, and in most cases digoxin. A total of 822 patients were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of spironolactone daily, and 841 to receive placebo. The primary end point was death from all causes. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early, after a mean follow-up period of 24 months, because an interim analysis determined that spironolactone was efficacious. There were 386 deaths in the placebo group (46 percent) and 284 in the spironolactone group (35 percent; relative risk of death, 0.70; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.82; P<0.001). This 30 percent reduction in the risk of death among patients in the spironolactone group was attributed to a lower risk of both death from progressive heart failure and sudden death from cardiac causes. The frequency of hospitalization for worsening heart failure was 35 percent lower in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (relative risk of hospitalization, 0.65; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.77; P<0.001). In addition, patients who received spironolactone had a significant improvement in the symptoms of heart failure, as assessed on the basis of the New York Heart Association functional class (P<0.001). Gynecomastia or breast pain was reported in 10 percent of men who were treated with spironolactone, as compared with 1 percent of men in the placebo group (P<0.001). The incidence of serious hyperkalemia was minimal in both groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Blockade of aldosterone receptors by spironolactone, in addition to standard therapy, substantially reduces the risk of both morbidity and death among patients with severe heart failure.

BACKGROUND: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

To evaluate the influence of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril (2.5 to 40 mg per day) on the prognosis of severe congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class IV), we randomly assigned 253 patients in a double-blind study to receive either placebo (n = 126) or enalapril (n = 127). Conventional treatment for heart failure, including the use of other vasodilators, was continued in both groups. Follow-up averaged 188 days (range, 1 day to 20 months). The crude mortality at the end of six months (primary end point) was 26 percent in the enalapril group and 44 percent in the placebo group — a reduction of 40 percent (P = 0.002). Mortality was reduced by 31 percent at one year (P = 0.001). By the end of the study, there had been 68 deaths in the placebo group and 50 in the enalapril group — a reduction of 27 percent (P = 0.003). The entire reduction in total mortality was found to be among patients with progressive heart failure (a reduction of 50 percent), whereas no difference was seen in the incidence of sudden cardiac death. A significant improvement in NYHA classification was observed in the enalapril group, together with a reduction in heart size and a reduced requirement for other medication for heart failure. The overall withdrawal rate was similar in both groups, but hypotension requiring withdrawal occurred in seven patients in the enalapril group and in no patients in the placebo group. After the initial dose of enalapril was reduced to 2.5 mg daily in high-risk patients, this side effect was less frequent. We conclude that the addition of enalapril to conventional therapy in patients with severe congestive heart failure can reduce mortality and improve symptoms. The beneficial effect on mortality is due to a reduction in death from the progression of heart failure. (N Engl J Med 1987; 316:1429–35.)

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. More evidence is needed regarding the effects of these drugs in patients across the broad spectrum of heart failure, including those with a markedly reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: of body-surface area per year, P<0.001), and empagliflozin-treated patients had a lower risk of serious renal outcomes. Uncomplicated genital tract infection was reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving recommended therapy for heart failure, those in the empagliflozin group had a lower risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure than those in the placebo group, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Reduced ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057977.).

BACKGROUND: Controlled clinical trials have shown that beta-blockers can produce hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement in chronic heart failure, but the effect of these drugs on survival has not been determined. METHODS: We enrolled 1094 patients with chronic heart failure in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified program, in which patients were assigned to one of the four treatment protocols on the basis of their exercise capacity. Within each of the four protocols patients with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure with left ventricular ejection fractions < or = 0.35 were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 398) or the beta-blocker carvedilol (n = 696); background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor remained constant. Patient were observed for the occurrence death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons during the following 6 months, after the beginning (12 months for the group with mild heart failure). RESULTS: The overall mortality rate was 7.8 percent in the placebo group and 3.2 percent in the carvedilol group; the reduction in risk attributable to carvedilol was 65 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39 to 80 percent; P < 0.001). This finding led the Data and Safety Monitoring Board to recommend termination of the study before its scheduled completion. In addition, as compared with placebo, carvedilol therapy was accompanied by a 27 percent reduction in the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (19.6 percent vs. 14.1 percent, P = 0.036), as well as a 38 percent reduction in the combined risk of hospitalization or death (24.6 percent vs, 15.8 percent, P < 0.001). Worsening heart failure as an adverse reaction during treatment was less frequent in the carvedilol than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol reduces the risk or death as well as the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in patients with heart failure who are receiving treatment with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor.

The natural history of congestive heart failure was studied over a 16-year period in 5192 persons initially free of the disease. Over this period, overt evidence of congestive heart failure developed in 142 persons. In almost every five-year age group, from 30 to 62 years, the incidence rate was greater for men than for women. Although the usual etiologic precursors were found, the dominant one was clearly hypertension, which preceded failure in 75 per cent of the cases. Coronary heart disease was noted at an earlier examination in 39 per cent, but in 29 per cent of the cases it was accompanied by hypertension. Precursive rheumatic heart disease, noted in 21 per cent of cases of congestive heart failure, was accompanied by hypertension in 11 per cent. Despite modern management, congestive heart failure proved to be extremely lethal. The probability of dying within five years from onset of congestive heart failure was 62 per cent for men and 42 per cent for women.

BACKGROUND: B-type natriuretic peptide is released from the cardiac ventricles in response to increased wall tension. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 1586 patients who came to the emergency department with acute dyspnea and whose B-type natriuretic peptide was measured with a bedside assay. The clinical diagnosis of congestive heart failure was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists, who were blinded to the results of the B-type natriuretic peptide assay. RESULTS: The final diagnosis was dyspnea due to congestive heart failure in 744 patients (47 percent), dyspnea due to noncardiac causes in 72 patients with a history of left ventricular dysfunction (5 percent), and no finding of congestive heart failure in 770 patients (49 percent). B-type natriuretic peptide levels by themselves were more accurate than any historical or physical findings or laboratory values in identifying congestive heart failure as the cause of dyspnea. The diagnostic accuracy of B-type natriuretic peptide at a cutoff of 100 pg per milliliter was 83.4 percent. The negative predictive value of B-type natriuretic peptide at levels of less than 50 pg per milliliter was 96 percent. In multiple logistic-regression analysis, measurements of B-type natriuretic peptide added significant independent predictive power to other clinical variables in models predicting which patients had congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Used in conjunction with other clinical information, rapid measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide is useful in establishing or excluding the diagnosis of congestive heart failure in patients with acute dyspnea.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocking agents reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure, but little is known about their effects in severe heart failure. METHODS: We evaluated 2289 patients who had symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion, who were clinically euvolemic, and who had an ejection fraction of less than 25 percent. In a double-blind fashion, we randomly assigned 1133 patients to placebo and 1156 patients to treatment with carvedilol for a mean period of 10.4 months, during which standard therapy for heart failure was continued. Patients who required intensive care, had marked fluid retention, or were receiving intravenous vasodilators or positive inotropic drugs were excluded. RESULTS: There were 190 deaths in the placebo group and 130 deaths in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 35 percent decrease in the risk of death with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 19 to 48 percent; P=0.00013, unadjusted; P=0.0014, adjusted for interim analyses). A total of 507 patients died or were hospitalized in the placebo group, as compared with 425 in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 24 percent decrease in the combined risk of death or hospitalization with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 13 to 33 percent; P<0.001). The favorable effects on both end points were seen consistently in all the subgroups we examined, including patients with a history of recent or recurrent cardiac decompensation. Fewer patients in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group withdrew because of adverse effects or for other reasons (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The previously reported benefits of carvedilol with regard to morbidity and mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure were also apparent in the patients with severe heart failure who were evaluated in this trial.