Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine最新文献

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to the accumulation of uremic toxins in the middle and large-middle molecular weight range. As online hemodiafiltration (HDF) removes these molecules more effectively than standard hemodialysis (HD), it has been suggested that online HDF improves survival and cardiovascular outcome. Thus far, no conclusive data of HDF on target organ damage and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are available. Therefore, the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST) has been initiated. METHODS: CONTRAST is a Dutch multi-center randomised controlled trial. In this trial, approximately 800 chronic hemodialysis patients will be randomised between online HDF and low-flux HD, and followed for three years. The primary endpoint is all cause mortality. The main secondary outcome variables are fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: The study is designed to provide conclusive evidence whether online HDF leads to a lower mortality and less cardiovascular events as compared to standard HD.

Background: Spinal cord electrical stimulation (SCS) has shown to be a treatment option for patients suffering from angina pectoris CCS III-IV although being on optimal medication and not suitable for conventional treatment strategies, e.g. CABG or PTCA. Although many studies demonstrated a clear symptomatic relief under SCS therapy, there are only a few short-term studies that investigated alterations in cardiac ischemia. Therefore doubts remain whether SCS has a direct effect on myocardial perfusion.

Methods: A prospective study to investigate the short- and long-term effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on myocardial ischemia in patients with refractory angina pectoris and coronary multivessel disease was designed. Myocardial ischemia was measured by MIBI-SPECT scintigraphy 3 months and 12 months after the beginning of neurostimulation. To further examine the relation between cardiac perfusion and functional status of the patients we measured exercise capacity (bicycle ergometry and 6-minute walk test), symptoms and quality of life (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ]), as well.

Results: 31 patients (65 +/- 11 SEM years; 25 male, 6 female) were included into the study. The average consumption of short acting nitrates (SAN) decreased rapidly from 12 +/- 1.6 times to 3 +/- 1 times per week. The walking distance and the maximum workload increased from 143 +/- 22 to 225 +/- 24 meters and 68 +/- 7 to 96 +/- 12 watt after 3 months. Quality of life increased (SAQ) significantly after 3 month compared to baseline, as well. No further improvement was observed after one year of treatment. Despite the symptomatic relief and the improvement in maximal workload computer based analysis (Emory Cardiac Toolbox) of the MIBI-SPECT studies after 3 months of treatment did not show significant alterations of myocardial ischemia compared to baseline (16 patients idem, 7 with increase and 6 with decrease of ischemia, 2 patients dropped out during initial test phase). Interestingly, in the long-term follow up after one year 16 patients (of 27 who completed the one year follow up) showed a clear decrease of myocardial ischemia and only one patient still had an increase of ischemia compared to baseline.

Conclusion: Thus, spinal cord stimulation not only relieves symptoms, but reduces myocardial ischemia as well. However, since improvement in symptoms and exercise capacity starts much earlier, decreased myocardial ischemia might not be a direct effect of neurostimulation but rather be due to a better coronary collateralisation because of an enhanced physical activity of the patients.

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality.In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications.The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources.A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results.Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years.

BACKGROUND: Activation of inflammatory pathways plays an important contributory role in coronary plaque instability and subsequent rupture, which can lead to the development of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Elevated levels of serum inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) represent independent risk factors for further cardiovascular events. Recent evidence indicates that in addition to lowering cholesterol levels, statins also decrease levels of inflammatory markers. Previous controlled clinical trials reporting the positive effects of statins in participants with ACS were designed for very early secondary prevention. To our knowledge, no controlled trials have evaluated the potential benefits of statin therapy, beginning immediately at the time of hospital admission. A previous pilot study performed by our group focused on early initiation of cerivastatin therapy. We demonstrated a highly significant reduction in levels of inflammatory markers (CRP and interleukin-6). Based on these preliminary findings, we are conducting a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of another statin, fluvastatin, as an early intervention in patients with ACS. METHODS: The FACS-trial (Fluvastatin in the therapy of Acute Coronary Syndrome) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the effects of fluvastatin therapy initiated at the time of hospital admission. The study will enroll 1,000 participants admitted to hospital for ACS (both with and without ST elevation). The primary endpoint for the study is the influence of fluvastatin therapy on levels of inflammatory markers (CRP and interleukin-6) and on pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A). A combined secondary endpoint is 30-day and one-year occurrence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, recurrent symptomatic ischemia, urgent revascularization, and cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: The primary objective of the FACS trial is to demonstrate that statin therapy, when started immediately after hospital admission for ACS, results in reduction of inflammation and improvement of prognosis. This study may contribute to new knowledge regarding therapeutic strategies for patients suffering from ACS and may offer additional clinical indications for the use of statins.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate measures for cardiovascular disease events have the potential to increase greatly the efficiency of clinical trials. A leading candidate for such a surrogate is the progression of intima-media thickness (IMT) of the carotid artery; much experience has been gained with this endpoint in trials of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). METHODS AND RESULTS: We examine two separate systems of criteria that have been proposed to define surrogate endpoints, based on clinical and statistical arguments. We use published results and a formal meta-analysis to evaluate whether progression of carotid IMT meets these criteria for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins).IMT meets clinical-based criteria to serve as a surrogate endpoint for cardiovascular events in statin trials, based on relative efficiency, linkage to endpoints, and congruency of effects. Results from a meta-analysis and post-trial follow-up from a single published study suggest that IMT meets established statistical criteria by accounting for intervention effects in regression models. CONCLUSION: Carotid IMT progression meets accepted definitions of a surrogate for cardiovascular disease endpoints in statin trials. This does not, however, establish that it may serve universally as a surrogate marker in trials of other agents.

BACKGROUND: Although the association between mitral stenosis (MS) and increased coagulation activity is well recognized, it is unclear whether enhanced coagulation remains localized in the left atrium or whether this represents a systemic problem. To assess systemic coagulation parameters and changes in platelet aggregation, we measured fibrinogen levels and performed in vitro platelet function tests in plasma obtained from mitral stenotic patients' and from healthy control subjects' peripheral venous blood. METHODS: Sixteen newly diagnosed patients with rheumatic MS (Group P) and 16 healthy subjects (Group N) were enrolled in the study. Platelet-equalized plasma samples were evaluated to determine in vitro platelet function, using adenosine diphosphate (ADP), collagen and epinephrine in an automated aggregometer. In vitro platelet function tests in group N were performed twice, with and without plasma obtained from group P. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographic variables. Peripheral venous fibrinogen levels in Group P were not significantly different from those in Group N. Adenosine diphosphate, epinephrine and collagen-induced platelet aggregation ratios were significantly higher in Group P than in Group N. When plasma obtained from Group P was added to Group N subjects' platelets, ADP and collagen-induced, but not epinephrine-induced, aggregation ratios were significantly increased compared to baseline levels in Group N. CONCLUSION: Platelet aggregation is increased in patients with MS, while fibrinogen levels remain similar to controls. We conclude that mitral stenotic patients exhibit increased systemic coagulation activity and that plasma extracted from these patients may contain some transferable factors that activate platelet aggregation.

The delivery of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is sophisticated and requires the programming of over 100 settings. Physicians tailor these settings with the intention of optimizing ICD therapeutic efficacy, but the usefulness of this approach has not been studied and is unknown. Empiric programming of settings such as anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) has been demonstrated to be effective, but an empiric approach to programming all VT/VF detection and therapy settings has not been studied. A single standardized empiric programming regimen was developed based on key strategies with the intention of restricting shock delivery to circumstances when it is the only effective and appropriate therapy. The EMPIRIC trial is a worldwide, multi-center, prospective, one-to-one randomized comparison of empiric to physician tailored programming for VT/VF detection and therapy in a broad group of about 900 dual chamber ICD patients. The trial will provide a better understanding of how particular programming strategies impact the quantity of shocks delivered and facilitate optimization of complex ICD programming.

BACKGROUND: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is becoming the standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), to date most patients, even in developed countries, are reperfused with intravenous thrombolysis or do not receive a reperfusion therapy at all. In the post-lysis period these patients are at high risk for recurrent ischemic events. Early identification of these patients is mandatory as this subgroup could possibly benefit from an angioplasty of the infarct-related artery.Since viability seems to be related to ischemic adverse events, we initiated a clinical trial to investigate the benefits of PCI with stenting of the infarct-related artery in patients with viability detected early after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: The VIAMI-study is designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients who are hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction and who did not have primary or rescue PCI, undergo viability testing by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography (LDDE) within 3 days of admission. Consequently, patients with demonstrated viability are randomized to an invasive or conservative strategy. In the invasive strategy patients undergo coronary angiography with the intention to perform PCI with stenting of the infarct-related coronary artery and concomitant use of abciximab. In the conservative group an ischemia-guided approach is adopted (standard optimal care).The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction and unstable angina during a follow-up period of three years. CONCLUSION: The primary objective of the VIAMI-trial is to demonstrate that angioplasty of the infarct-related coronary artery with stenting and concomitant use of abciximab results in a clinically important risk reduction of future cardiac events in patients with viability in the infarct-area, detected early after myocardial infarction.