Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity after acute myocardial infarction: The OPTIMAAL randomized trial.
01 Jan 2002-
About: The article was published on 2002-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 99 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Captopril & Losartan.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure.
Abstract: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website†.
In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and to assess the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined below. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. If necessary, the document is revised once more to be finally approved by the Committee for Practice Guidelines and selected members of the Board of the ESC.
The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines ( CPG ) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have, which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements.
| Classes of recommendations |
|:-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Class I | Evidence and/or general agreement that a given diagnostic procedure/treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective |
| Class II | Conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of the treatment or procedure |
| Class IIa | Weight of evidence/opinion is in favour of usefulness/efficacy |
| Class IIb | Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion |
| Class III | Evidence or general agreement that the treatment or procedure is not useful/effective and, in some cases, may be harmful |
Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often appear …
1,769 citations
TL;DR: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes shows clear trends in survival and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Abstract: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. European Heart Journal (2007) 28, 88-136.
293 citations
TL;DR: It is critical to frequently re-evaluate beta-blocker eligibility among patients after MI with HF, as the only therapy proven to reduce mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock is early revascularization.
Abstract: Heart failure (HF) complicating myocardial infarction (MI) is common and may be present at admission or develop during the hospitalization. Among patients with MI, there is a strong relationship between degree of HF and mortality. The optimal management of the patient with HF complicating MI varies according to time since the onset of infarction. Medical therapy for HF after MI includes early (within 24 h) initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and early (within 7 days) use of aldosterone antagonists. Alternatively, in patients with MI and ongoing HF, early use (<24 h) of beta-blockers is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and death. Long-term beta-blocker use after MI is associated with a reduced risk of reinfarction and death. Thus, it is critical to frequently re-evaluate beta-blocker eligibility among patients after MI with HF. Cardiogenic shock is an extreme presentation of HF after MI and is a leading cause of death in the MI setting. The only therapy proven to reduce mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock is early revascularization. Several studies are examining new approaches to mitigate the occurrence and adverse impact of post-MI HF. These studies are testing drugs for HF and diabetes and are evaluating mechanical support devices to bridge patients to recovery or transplantation.
215 citations
Cites methods from "Effects of losartan and captopril o..."
...OPTIMAAL (Optimal Trial In Myocardial infarction with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) (29) included 5,477 patients with confirmed AMI and HF during the acute phase or a new Q-wave anterior infarction or reinfarction to receive either losartan 50 mg 3 times a day or captopril 50 mg 3 times a day....
[...]
...Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan....
[...]
TL;DR: Copeptin is a strong and novel marker for mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after AMI and the predictive value of copeptin was even stronger than BNP and NT-proBNP.
Abstract: Aims The aim of the present study was to compare the prognostic value of a novel and promising marker, copeptin, with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), on death or a composite cardiovascular endpoint in patients who developed heart failure after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Methods and results From a subset of 224 patients of the OPTIMAAL study, blood samples were drawn at a mean of 3 days after AMI when all patients had signs and/or symptoms of heart failure or a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35. Endpoints of interest were mortality (primary endpoint of OPTIMAAL) and a composite cardiovascular endpoint, including death, MI, stroke, and/or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Mean age was 67 ± 10 years, and mean follow-up was 33 ± 7 months. Using univariable Cox proportional hazards survival analysis, higher levels of copeptin, BNP, and NT-proBNP were all significantly related to both mortality and the composite cardiovascular endpoint (all P < 0.01). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including all three biomarkers and other relevant covariates, a doubling of copeptin was related to a 1.83 (1.26–2.64) times increased risk of mortality ( P < 0.0001) and a 1.35 (1.05–1.72) times increased risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint ( P = 0.018). Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that copeptin [area under curve (AUC) 0.81] was a stronger predictor of mortality compared with both BNP (AUC 0.66; P = 0.0063 vs. copeptin) and NT-proBNP (AUC 0.67; P = 0.0016 vs. copeptin). Finally, changes of copeptin levels after 1 month significantly added prognostic information to the baseline value.
Conclusion Copeptin is a strong and novel marker for mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after AMI. In this population, the predictive value of copeptin was even stronger than BNP and NT-proBNP.
214 citations
Additional excerpts
...Age [mean (+SD)] 68 (10) 63 (8) 65 (10) 71 (10) 73 (11) ,0....
[...]
Complutense University of Madrid1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University3, University College Cork4, University of Granada5, Medical University of Vienna6, St George's, University of London7, Copenhagen University Hospital8, Aalborg University9, Karolinska University Hospital10, Oslo University Hospital11, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology12
TL;DR: Gender differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cardiovascular drugs are summarized and recommendations to close the gaps in the understanding of sex-specific differences in drug efficacy and safety are provided.
Abstract: Although sex-specific differences in cardiovascular medicine are well known, the exact influences of sex on the effect of cardiovascular drugs remain unclear. Women and men differ in body composition and physiology (hormonal influences during the menstrual cycle, menopause, and pregnancy) and they present differences in drug pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) and pharmacodynamics, so that is not rare that they may respond differently to cardiovascular drugs. Furthermore, women are also less often treated with evidence-based drugs thereby preventing optimization of therapeutics for women of all ages, experience more relevant adverse drug reactions than men, and remain underrepresented in most clinical trials. Thus, current guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and medical treatment for cardiovascular diseases are based on trials conducted predominantly in middle-aged men. A better understanding of these sex-related differences is fundamental to improve the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular drugs and for developing proper individualized cardiovascular therapeutic strategies both in men and women. This review briefly summarizes gender differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cardiovascular drugs and provides recommendations to close the gaps in our understanding of sex-specific differences in drug efficacy and safety.
198 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure.
Abstract: Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website†.
In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and to assess the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined below. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. If necessary, the document is revised once more to be finally approved by the Committee for Practice Guidelines and selected members of the Board of the ESC.
The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines ( CPG ) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have, which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements.
| Classes of recommendations |
|:-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Class I | Evidence and/or general agreement that a given diagnostic procedure/treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective |
| Class II | Conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of the treatment or procedure |
| Class IIa | Weight of evidence/opinion is in favour of usefulness/efficacy |
| Class IIb | Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion |
| Class III | Evidence or general agreement that the treatment or procedure is not useful/effective and, in some cases, may be harmful |
Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often appear …
1,769 citations
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Giuseppe Mancia, co-Chairperson (Italy), Guy De Backer, Co-Chair person (Belgium), Anna Dominiczak (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), Robert Fagard (Belgian), Giuseppo Germano (Italy) and Guido Grassi (Italy).
Abstract: Authors/Task Force Members: Giuseppe Mancia, Co-Chairperson (Italy), Guy De Backer, Co-Chairperson (Belgium), Anna Dominiczak (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic) Robert Fagard (Belgium), Giuseppe Germano (Italy), Guido Grassi (Italy), Anthony M. Heagerty (UK), Sverre E. Kjeldsen (Norway), Stephane Laurent (France), Krzysztof Narkiewicz (Poland), Luis Ruilope (Spain), Andrzej Rynkiewicz (Poland), Roland E. Schmieder (Germany), Harry A.J. Struijker Boudier (Netherlands), Alberto Zanchetti (Italy)
1,085 citations
TL;DR: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes shows clear trends in survival and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Abstract: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. European Heart Journal (2007) 28, 88-136.
293 citations
TL;DR: It is critical to frequently re-evaluate beta-blocker eligibility among patients after MI with HF, as the only therapy proven to reduce mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock is early revascularization.
Abstract: Heart failure (HF) complicating myocardial infarction (MI) is common and may be present at admission or develop during the hospitalization. Among patients with MI, there is a strong relationship between degree of HF and mortality. The optimal management of the patient with HF complicating MI varies according to time since the onset of infarction. Medical therapy for HF after MI includes early (within 24 h) initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and early (within 7 days) use of aldosterone antagonists. Alternatively, in patients with MI and ongoing HF, early use (<24 h) of beta-blockers is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and death. Long-term beta-blocker use after MI is associated with a reduced risk of reinfarction and death. Thus, it is critical to frequently re-evaluate beta-blocker eligibility among patients after MI with HF. Cardiogenic shock is an extreme presentation of HF after MI and is a leading cause of death in the MI setting. The only therapy proven to reduce mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock is early revascularization. Several studies are examining new approaches to mitigate the occurrence and adverse impact of post-MI HF. These studies are testing drugs for HF and diabetes and are evaluating mechanical support devices to bridge patients to recovery or transplantation.
215 citations
TL;DR: Copeptin is a strong and novel marker for mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after AMI and the predictive value of copeptin was even stronger than BNP and NT-proBNP.
Abstract: Aims The aim of the present study was to compare the prognostic value of a novel and promising marker, copeptin, with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), on death or a composite cardiovascular endpoint in patients who developed heart failure after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Methods and results From a subset of 224 patients of the OPTIMAAL study, blood samples were drawn at a mean of 3 days after AMI when all patients had signs and/or symptoms of heart failure or a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35. Endpoints of interest were mortality (primary endpoint of OPTIMAAL) and a composite cardiovascular endpoint, including death, MI, stroke, and/or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Mean age was 67 ± 10 years, and mean follow-up was 33 ± 7 months. Using univariable Cox proportional hazards survival analysis, higher levels of copeptin, BNP, and NT-proBNP were all significantly related to both mortality and the composite cardiovascular endpoint (all P < 0.01). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, including all three biomarkers and other relevant covariates, a doubling of copeptin was related to a 1.83 (1.26–2.64) times increased risk of mortality ( P < 0.0001) and a 1.35 (1.05–1.72) times increased risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint ( P = 0.018). Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that copeptin [area under curve (AUC) 0.81] was a stronger predictor of mortality compared with both BNP (AUC 0.66; P = 0.0063 vs. copeptin) and NT-proBNP (AUC 0.67; P = 0.0016 vs. copeptin). Finally, changes of copeptin levels after 1 month significantly added prognostic information to the baseline value.
Conclusion Copeptin is a strong and novel marker for mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after AMI. In this population, the predictive value of copeptin was even stronger than BNP and NT-proBNP.
214 citations