Carvedilol blocks beta(2)- more than beta(1)-adrenoceptors in human heart

Objective: To understand the basis of the effectiveness of carvedilol in heart failure by determining its specific properties at human heart and beta(2)-adrenoceptors. Methods: The positive inotropic effects of noradrenaline (in the presence of the beta(2)-selective antagonist ICI118551) and adrenaline (in the presence of the beta(1)-selective antagonist CGP20712), mediated through beta(1)- and beta(2)-adrenoceptors, respectively, were investigated in atrial and ventricular trabeculae. The patch-clamp technique was used to investigate effects of noradrenaline and adrenaline on L-type Ca2+ current in human atrial myocytes. Results: Carvedilol was a 13-fold more potent competitive antagonist of the effects of adrenaline at 1 2-adrenoceptors (-logK(B) = 10.13 +/- 0.08) than of noradrenaline at beta(1)-adrenoceptors (-logK(B) = 9.02 +/- 0.07) in human right atrium. Chronic carvedilol treatment of patients with non-terminal heart failure reduced the inotropic sensitivity of atrial trabeculae to noradrenaline and adrenaline 5.6-fold and 91.2-fold, respectively, compared to beta(1)-blocker-treated patients, consistent with persistent preferential blockade of beta(2)-adrenoceptors. In terminal heart failure carvedilol treatment reduced 1.8-fold and 25.1-fold the sensitivity of right ventricular trabeculae to noradrenaline and adrenaline, respectively, but metoprolol treatment did not reduce the sensitivity to the catecholamines. Increases of current (I-Ca,I-L) produced by noradrenaline and adrenaline were not different in atrial myocytes obtained from non-terminal heart failure patients treated with metoprolol or carvedilol, consistent with dissociation of both beta-blockers from the receptors. Conclusions: Carvedilol blocks human cardiac beta(2)-adrenoceptors more than beta(1)-adrenoceptors, thereby conceivably contributing to the beneficial effects in heart failure. The persistent blockade of beta-adrenoceptors is attributed to accumulation of carvedilol in cardiac tissue. (c) 2005 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Achieving better in-hospital and after-hospital care of patients with acute cardiac disease

In patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and congestive heart failure (CHF), evidence suggests opportunities for improving in-hospital and after hospital care, patient self-care, and hospital-community integration. A multidisciplinary quality improvement program was designed and instigated in Brisbane in October 2000 involving 250 clinicians at three teaching hospitals, 1080 general practitioners (GPs) from five Divisions of General Practice, 1594 patients with ACS and 904 patients with CHF. Quality improvement interventions were implemented over 17 months after a 6-month baseline period and included: clinical decision support (clinical practice guidelines, reminders, checklists, clinical pathways); educational interventions (seminars, academic detailing); regular performance feedback; patient self-management strategies; and hospital-community integration (discharge referral summaries; community pharmacist liaison; patient prompts to attend GPs). Using a before-after study design to assess program impact, significantly more program patients compared with historical controls received: ACS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and lipid-lowering agents at discharge, aspirin and beta-blockers at 3 months after discharge, inpatient cardiac counselling, and referral to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. CHF. Assessment for reversible precipitants, use of prophylaxis for deep-venous thrombosis, beta-blockers at discharge, ACE inhibitors at 6 months after discharge, imaging of left ventricular function, and optimal management of blood pressure levels. Risk-adjusted mortality rates at 6 and 12 months decreased, respectively, from 9.8% to 7.4% (P=0.06) and from 13.4% to 10.1% (P= 0.06) for patients with ACS and from 22.8% to 15.2% (P < 0.001) and from 32.8% to 22.4% (P= 0.005) for patients with CHF. Quality improvement programs that feature multifaceted interventions across the continuum of care can change clinical culture, optimise care and improve clinical outcomes.

Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on the primary care burden and treatment of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in general practice in Scotland: population based study

Objectives To examine whether there are socioeconomic gradients in die incidence, prevalence, treatment, and follow up of patients with heart failure in primary care. Design Population based study. Setting 53 general practices (307741 patients) participating in the Scottish continuous morbidity recording project between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. Participants 2186 adults with heart failure. Main outcome measures Comorbid diagnoses, frequency of visits to general practitioner, and prescribed drugs. Results 2186 patients with heart failure were seen (prevalence 7.1 per 1000 population, incidence 2.0 per 1000 population). The age and sex standardised incidence of heart failure increased with greater socioeconomic deprivation, from 1.8 per 1000 population in the most affluent stratum to 2.6 per 1000 population in the most deprived stratum (odds ratio 1.44, P=0.0003). On average, patients were seen 2.4 times yearly, but follow up rates were less frequent with increasing socioeconomic deprivation (from 2.6 yearly in the most affluent subgroup to 2.0 yearly in the most deprived subgroup, P=0.00009). Overall, 812 (80.6%) patients were prescribed diuretics, 396 (39.3%) angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 216 (21.4%) beta blockers, 208 (20.7%) digoxin, and 86 (8.5%) spironolactone. The wide discrepancies in prescribing between different general practices disappeared after adjustment for patient age and sex. Prescribing patterns did not vary by deprivation categories on univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusions Compared with affluent patients, socioeconomically deprived patients were 44% more likely to develop heart failure but 23% less likely to see their general practitioner on an ongoing basis. Prescribed treatment did not differ across socioeconomic gradients.

CHARMed - the effects of candesartan in heart failure

The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and mortality (CHARM) programme has already shown that candesartan is an effective alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (CHARM-Alternative), that additional benefits can be achieved by adding candesartan to ACE inhibitors (CHARM-Added), and that in patients with a preserved cardiac output there are reduced hospital admissions (CHARM-Preserved). Further recent analysis of the CHARM programme has shown that of the cardiovascular deaths, the benefit of candesartan was due to a reduction in sudden death and progressive heart failure, and that these reductions were observed in the -Alternative and -Added but not -Preserved components. Combination of the CHAR M-Alternative and -Added trials confirmed this reduction of cardiovascular deaths, and also demonstrated that candesartan reduced hospital admissions. There were also improvements in the New York Heart Association functional class of heart failure in the -Alternative and -Added, but not -Preserved, components of CHARM. The benefits of candesartan in heart failure are maintained in the presence of an ACE inhibitor and P-blocker. So far, all of the findings with candesartan in the CHARM programme have been favourable/CHARMed, although the beneficial effects in patients with a preserved cardiac output are limited.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per them (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. Results: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was 530,771 pound (44.89 pound per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was 3.49 pound million in the carvedilol group compared with 4.24 pound million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group (479,200 pound vs. 548,300) pound. Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was 3948 pound compared to 4279 pound in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of 385.98 pound vs. 434.18 pound, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. Conclusions: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.