Jerome L. Fleg

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.).

CONTEXT: Guidelines recommend that exercise training be considered for medically stable outpatients with heart failure. Previous studies have not had adequate statistical power to measure the effects of exercise training on clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy and safety of exercise training among patients with heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 2331 medically stable outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Participants in Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) were randomized from April 2003 through February 2007 at 82 centers within the United States, Canada, and France; median follow-up was 30 months. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care plus aerobic exercise training, consisting of 36 supervised sessions followed by home-based training, or usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and prespecified secondary end points of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS: The median age was 59 years, 28% were women, and 37% had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms. Heart failure etiology was ischemic in 51%, and median left ventricular ejection fraction was 25%. Exercise adherence decreased from a median of 95 minutes per week during months 4 through 6 of follow-up to 74 minutes per week during months 10 through 12. A total of 759 patients (65%) in the exercise training group died or were hospitalized compared with 796 patients (68%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.84-1.02]; P = .13). There were nonsignificant reductions in the exercise training group for mortality (189 patients [16%] in the exercise training group vs 198 patients [17%] in the usual care group; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.79-1.17]; P = .70), cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization (632 [55%] in the exercise training group vs 677 [58%] in the usual care group; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.03]; P = .14), and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (344 [30%] in the exercise training group vs 393 [34%] in the usual care group; HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.00]; P = .06). In prespecified supplementary analyses adjusting for highly prognostic baseline characteristics, the HRs were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.99; P = .03) for all-cause mortality or hospitalization, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.01; P = .09) for cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P = .03) for cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Other adverse events were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the protocol-specified primary analysis, exercise training resulted in nonsignificant reductions in the primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and in key secondary clinical end points. After adjustment for highly prognostic predictors of the primary end point, exercise training was associated with modest significant reductions for both all-cause mortality or hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00047437.

T he purpose of this report is to provide revised standards and guidelines for the exercise testing and training of individuals who are free from clinical manifestations of cardiovascular disease and those with known cardiovascular disease. These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, exercise physiologists, specialists, technologists, and other healthcare professionals involved in exercise testing and training of these populations. This report is in accord with the "Statement on Exercise" published by the American Heart Association (AHA). An update of background, scientific rationale, and selected references is provided, and current issues of practical importance in the clinical use of these standards are considered. These guidelines are in accord with the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA Guidelines for Exercise Testing. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND: It has been well established that arterial stiffness, manifest as an increase in arterial pulse wave velocity or late systolic amplification of the carotid artery pressure pulse, increases with age. However, the populations studied in prior investigations were not rigorously screened to exclude clinical hypertension, occult coronary disease, or diabetes. Furthermore, it is unknown whether exercise capacity or chronic physical endurance training affects the age-associated increase in arterial stiffness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Carotid arterial pressure pulse augmentation index (AGI), using applanation tonometry, and aortic pulse wave velocity (APWV) were measured in 146 male and female volunteers 21 to 96 years old from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, who were rigorously screened to exclude clinical and occult cardiovascular disease. Aerobic capacity was determined in all individuals by measurement of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) during treadmill exercise. In this healthy, largely sedentary cohort, the arterial stiffness indexes AGI and APWV increased approximately fivefold and twofold, respectively, across the age span in both men and women, despite only a 14% increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP). These age-associated increases in AGI and APWV were of a similar magnitude to those in prior studies of less rigorously screened populations. Both AGI and APWV varied inversely with VO2max, and this relationship, at least for AGI, was independent of age. In endurance trained male athletes, 54 to 75 years old (VO2max = 44 +/- 3 mL.kg-1.min-1), the arterial stiffness indexes were significantly reduced relative to their sedentary age peers (AGI, 36% lower; APWV, 26% lower) despite similar blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Even in normotensive, rigorously screened volunteers in whom SBP increased an average of only 14% between ages 20 and 90 years, major age-associated increases of arterial stiffness occur. Higher physical conditioning status, indexed by VO2max, was associated with reduced arterial stiffness, both within this predominantly sedentary population and in endurance trained older men relative to their less active age peers. These findings suggest that interventions to improve aerobic capacity may mitigate the stiffening of the arterial tree that accompanies normative aging.