Åke Hjalmarson

BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure have generally been excluded from statin trials. Acute coronary events are uncommon in this population, and statins have theoretical risks in these patients. METHODS: A total of 5011 patients at least 60 years of age with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of rosuvastatin or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause, any coronary event, death from cardiovascular causes, and the number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: As compared with the placebo group, patients in the rosuvastatin group had decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (difference between groups, 45.0%; P<0.001) and of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (difference between groups, 37.1%; P<0.001). During a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the primary outcome occurred in 692 patients in the rosuvastatin group and 732 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.02; P=0.12), and 728 patients and 759 patients, respectively, died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.31). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the coronary outcome or death from cardiovascular causes. In a prespecified secondary analysis, there were fewer hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes in the rosuvastatin group (2193) than in the placebo group (2564) (P<0.001). No excessive episodes of muscle-related or other adverse events occurred in the rosuvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin did not reduce the primary outcome or the number of deaths from any cause in older patients with systolic heart failure, although the drug did reduce the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations. The drug did not cause safety problems. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00206310.)

To evaluate the short- and long-term effects of beta-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol) as well as the reaction to withdrawal and readministration of metoprolol in severe heart failure, 33 patients (25 men and eight women; mean age, 47.6 +/- 14.0 years) with dilated cardiomyopathy were studied by right and left heart catheterization, right ventricular biopsy, two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography, and external pulse recordings. Twenty-six of 33 patients survived more than 6 months, and 24 of the 26 patients improved their functional class (from mean 3.3 to 1.8, p less than 0.0001). These 24 patients were subjected to withdrawal of metoprolol until the number of symptoms increased and deterioration occurred as observed noninvasively (group 1, n = 16), whereas the eight patients did not deteriorate during a 12-month period (group 2). During long-term treatment with metoprolol, there was an increase in ejection fraction from 0.24 to 0.42 (p less than 0.0001), whereas there was a decrease in the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic dimension (from 7.3 to 6.4 cm, p less than 0.0001), in the grade of mitral regurgitation (from 1.7 to 0.4, p less than 0.0001), and in the grade of tricuspid regurgitation (from 0.6 to 0.05, p less than 0.007). There was a decrease in pulmonary wedge pressure (from 23.8 to 10.7 mm Hg, p less than 0.0001), LV end-diastolic pressure (from 24.1 to 13.4 mm Hg, p less than 0.002), and systolic vascular resistance (from 1,782 to 1,499 dynes/sec/cm, p less than 0.04). There was an increase in systolic blood pressure (from 116 to 132 mm Hg, p less than 0.003), cardiac index (from 2.17 to 2.58 l/min/m2, p less than 0.005), and LV stroke work index (from 31 to 65 g.m/m2, p less than 0.0001). During withdrawal of metoprolol, the heart rate and left atrial dimension increased (p less than 0.0001), whereas ejection fraction decreased (p less than 0.0001). The 12 (of 16) patients in group 1 who survived the withdrawal period had metoprolol readministered, and subsequently, ejection fraction increased (from 0.23 to 0.33, p less than 0.002). Patients had a low number of ventricular beta-adrenergic receptors compared with healthy control subjects (30.3 +/- 2.9 vs. 97.4 +/- 8.7 fmol/mg protein, p less than 0.001), but long-term treatment with metoprolol caused a moderate up-regulation (from 30.3 +/- 2.9 to 49.0 +/- 7.1 fmol/mg protein, p less than 0.05), which may facilitate a more normal response to sympathetic stimulation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

During a double-blind trial in which patients with suspected myocardial infarction received metoprolol or placebo, we analyzed the occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Metoprolol (15 mg intravenously) was given as soon as possible after admission, and thereafter 200 mg was given daily for three months. Antiarrhythmic drugs were given only for ventricular fibrillation and sustained ventricular tachycardia (greater than 60 beats per second). Definite acute myocardial infarction developed in 809 of the 1395 participants, and probable infarction in 162. Metoprolol did not influence the occurrence of premature ventricular contractions or short bursts of ventricular tachycardia. However, there were 17 cases of ventricular fibrillation in the placebo group (697 patients) and only 6 in the metoprolol group (698 patients, P less than 0.05). During the hospital stay significantly fewer patients receiving metoprolol (16) than placebo (38) (P less than 0.01) required lidocaine. In a separate analysis of 145 patients, metoprolol did not influence the occurrence of premature ventricular contractions or short bursts of ventricular tachycardia during the first 24 hours of treatment. Despite a lack of effect on less serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias, metoprolol had a prophylactic effect against ventricular fibrillation in acute myocardial infarction.