scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "John P. Boehmer published in 2012"


Journal ArticleDOI
Shunichi Homma1, John L.P. Thompson1, Patrick M. Pullicino2, Bruce Levin1  +533 moreInstitutions (12)
TL;DR: There was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, and a reduced risk of ischemic stroke withwarfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage.
Abstract: BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.)

497 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In a multicenter registry of ROCM, BTR was common and occurred in the majority of subjects requiring LVAD support, and Histology and LVEDD may assist in predicting potential for BTR in R OCM.

59 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Enrollment in the trial was stopped because an interim analysis showed futility of reaching the peak VO(2) end point, but because of the device safety and favorable signals for LV remodeling and quality of life, further investigation of this device is warranted.

29 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the utilization of ICDs and the impact on survival for subjects with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (ROCM) and found that early ICD placement did not impact survival and can be deferred while assessing potential for myocardial recovery.

22 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Investigation into HF disease management with a multispecialty approach, pre- CRT and post-CRT, are warranted, given the recent developments in advanced sensor technologies.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The PEERLESS-HF trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of ventricular elastic support in advanced systolic heart failure, advancing knowledge of this investigational approach to heart failure therapy.

8 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite much improvement in the outcomes of patients undergoing implantation with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), right ventricle failure remains a challenging clinical dilemma, particularly perioperatively as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality.

1 citations