Background We compared the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. Methods In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. Results The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median followup of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P = 0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. Conclusions LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.)

/pdf/angiotensin-neprilysin-inhibition-versus-enalapril-in-heart-394udbl54o.pdf

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.ejheart.2008.08.005

ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians and other healthcare providers in selecting the best management strategies for a typical patient, suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.

A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC Web Site in the guidelines section (www.escardio.org).

In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to pre-defined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 .

View this table:

Table 1 
Classes of recommendations



View this table:

Table 2 
Levels of evidence



The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise …

/pdf/esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-and-1wzciic3c3.pdf

ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008

Authors/Task Force Members: Kenneth Dickstein (Chairperson) (Norway)*, Alain Cohen-Solal (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), John J.V. McMurray (UK), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson (UK), Anna Strömberg (Sweden), Dirk J. van Veldhuisen (The Netherlands), Dan Atar (Norway), Arno W. Hoes (The Netherlands), Andre Keren (Israel), Alexandre Mebazaa (France), Markku Nieminen (Finland), Silvia Giuliana Priori (Italy), Karl Swedberg (Sweden)

/pdf/esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-and-x4q6lrbnqu.pdf

C. Patrick Green

Papers

Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: a new health status measure for heart failure

a new health status measure for heart failure Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire

Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire