Jan E. Carlsen

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces mortality among survivors of acute myocardial infarction, but whether to use ACE inhibitors in all patients or only in selected patients is uncertain. METHODS: We screened 6676 consecutive patients with 7001 myocardial infarctions confirmed by enzyme studies. A total of 2606 patients had echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction, < or = 35 percent). On days 3 to 7 after infarction, 1749 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral trandolapril (876 patients) or placebo (873 patients). The duration of follow-up was 24 to 50 months. RESULTS: During the study period, 304 patients (34.7 percent) in the trandolapril group died, as compared with 369 (42.3 percent) in the placebo group (P = 0.001). The relative risk of death in the trandolapril group, as compared with the placebo group, was 0.78 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.91). Trandolapril also reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes (relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.89; P = 0.001) and sudden death (relative risk, 0.76; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.98; P = 0.03). Progression to severe heart failure was less frequent in the trandolapril group (relative risk, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.003). In contrast, the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (fatal or nonfatal) was not significantly reduced (relative risk, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.13; P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with trandolapril in patients with reduced left ventricular function soon after myocardial infarction significantly reduced the risk of overall mortality, mortality from cardiovascular causes, sudden death, and the development of severe heart failure. That mortality was reduced in a randomized study enrolling 25 percent of consecutive patients screened should encourage the selective use of ACE inhibition after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation occurs frequently in patients with congestive heart failure and commonly results in clinical deterioration and hospitalization. Sinus rhythm may be maintained with antiarrhythmic drugs, but some of these drugs increase the risk of death. METHODS: We studied 1518 patients with symptomatic congestive heart failure and severe left ventricular dysfunction at 34 Danish hospitals. We randomly assigned 762 patients to receive dofetilide, a novel class III antiarrhythmic agent, and 756 to receive placebo in a double-blind study. Treatment was initiated in the hospital and included three days of cardiac monitoring and dose adjustment. The primary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 18 months, 311 patients in the dofetilide group (41 percent) and 317 patients in the placebo group (42 percent) died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.11). Treatment with dofetilide significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for worsening congestive heart failure (risk ratio, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.89). Dofetilide was effective in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. After one month, 22 of 190 patients with atrial fibrillation at base line (12 percent) had sinus rhythm restored with dofetilide, as compared with only 3 of 201 patients (1 percent) given placebo. Once sinus rhythm was restored, dofetilide was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm (hazard ratio for the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.57; P<0.001). There were 25 cases of torsade de pointes in the dofetilide group (3.3 percent) as compared with none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with congestive heart failure and reduced left ventricular function, dofetilide was effective in converting atrial fibrillation, preventing its recurrence, and reducing the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Dofetilide had no effect on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Dronedarone is a novel antiarrhythmic drug with electrophysiological properties that are similar to those of amiodarone, but it does not contain iodine and thus does not cause iodine-related adverse reactions. Therefore, it may be of value in the treatment of patients with heart failure. METHODS: In a multicenter study with a double-blind design, we planned to randomly assign 1000 patients who were hospitalized with symptomatic heart failure and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction to receive 400 mg of dronedarone twice a day or placebo. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: After inclusion of 627 patients (310 in the dronedarone group and 317 in the placebo group), the trial was prematurely terminated for safety reasons, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, in accordance with the board's predefined rules for termination of the study. During a median follow-up of 2 months, 25 patients in the dronedarone group (8.1%) and 12 patients in the placebo group (3.8%) died (hazard ratio in the dronedarone group, 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 4.25; P=0.03). The excess mortality was predominantly related to worsening of heart failure--10 deaths in the dronedarone group and 2 in the placebo group. The primary end point did not differ significantly between the two groups; there were 53 events in the dronedarone group (17.1%) and 40 events in the placebo group (12.6%) (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.09; P=0.12). More increases in the creatinine concentration were reported as serious adverse events in the dronedarone group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, treatment with dronedarone was associated with increased early mortality related to the worsening of heart failure. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00543699.)

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relevant dose of bendrofluazide for treating mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN: Double blind parallel group trial of patients who were given placebo for six weeks and then randomly allocated to various doses of bendrofluazide (1.25, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. SETTING: General practices in Zealand, Denmark. PATIENTS: 257 Patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated hypertension, aged 25-70, who had a mean diastolic blood pressure of 100-120 mm Hg after receiving placebo for six weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reduction in diastolic blood pressure and changes in biochemical variables (potassium, urate, glucose, fructosamine, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein A I, apolipoprotein B, and triglyceride concentrations). RESULTS: All doses of bendrofluazide significantly reduced diastolic blood pressure to the same degree (10-11 mm Hg). Clear relations between dose and effect were shown for potassium, urate, glucose, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B concentrations. The 1.25 mg dose increased only urate concentrations, whereas the 10 mg dose affected all the above biochemical variables. CONCLUSION: The relevant range of doses of bendrofluazide to treat mild to moderate hypertension is 1.25-2.5 mg a day. Higher doses caused more pronounced adverse biochemical effects including adverse lipid effects. Previous trials with bendrofluazide have used too high doses.