Skip to main content
PMC home page
Current Cardiology Reviews logoLink to Current Cardiology Reviews
. 2015 Feb;11(1):18–22. doi: 10.2174/1573403X09666131117164352

Stage B: What is the Evidence for Treatment of Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Dysfunction?

Brent N Reed 1, Carla A Sueta 2,*
PMCID: PMC4347204  PMID: 24251458

Abstract

Although patients with American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Stage B heart failure, or asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction (ALVD) are at high risk for developing symptomatic heart failure, few manage-ment strategies have been shown to slow disease state progression or improve long-term morbidity and mortality. Of the pharmacologic therapies utilized in patients with symptomatic disease, only angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (and to a lesser extent, angiotensin receptor blockers, or ARBs) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes among pa-tients with ALVD. Although evidence to support the use of beta blockers in this setting has been primarily derived from ret-rospective studies or subgroup analyses, they are generally recommended in most patients with ALVD, especially those with ischemic etiology. Statins are associated with improvements in both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure events among patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction. Finally, in eligible patients, placement of an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been associated with reduced mortality rates among those with ALVD due to ischemic cardiomyopathy, and some subgroups may derive benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy or biventricular pacing.

Keywords: ACE inhibitors, asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, beta blockers, device therapy, heart failure, stage B.

INTRODUCTION

Patients with American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Stage B heart failure, also known as asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction (ALVD), are characterized as having evidence of structural heart disease (i.e., left ventricular dysfunction, left ventricular hypertrophy) without overt clinical signs or symptoms of heart failure. Although the reported prevalence of ALVD varies widely in the literature, some studies estimate that it may exceed the number of patients with symptomatic heart failure [1]. Moreover, patients with ALVD are at five times greater risk for developing symptomatic heart failure when compared to those with normal left ventricular function [2]. In an effort to slow the projected 25% increase in the prevalence of heart failure over the next two decades [3], strategies for appropriately screening for patients with ALVD and preventing progression to symptomatic heart failure are strongly advocated in clinical practice guidelines [1]. However, given that most of the trials to support pharmacologic therapy in heart failure enrolled symptomatic patients, very little information exists to guide clinicians in the appropriate management of patients with Stage B heart failure.

Although some patients may progress immediately to symptomatic heart failure following an acute event, most are recognized as progressing through Stage A and B prior to thedevelopment of symptoms. As a result, the preventive strategies discussed for Stage A patients (i.e., control of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and diabetes, use of statins in patients with ischemic disease, moderation of alcohol consumption, smoking cessation) should also be applied to those with ALVD (see article on Prevention). A summary of the evidence to date for pharmacologic and device therapy in Stage B patients is summarized in Table 1, including details related to the population enrolled in each trial (i.e., chronic heart failure versus acute myocardial infarction, left ventricular ejection fraction) as well as the number needed to treat (NNT) for expected benefit with each individual intervention.

Table 1.

Summary of trials in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction.

Drug Class Trial Population
(% with ALVD)		 LVEF Comparison Outcome NNT Duration (years)
ACE Inhibitors SOLVD Prevention [4] Chronic (100%) < 35% Enalapril vs. placebo Progression to HF 11 3.1
First hospitalization for HF 24
Multiple hospitalizations for HF 48
SOLVD Prevention Follow-up [5] Chronic (100%) < 35% Enalapril vs. placebo All-cause mortality 19 11.2
Cardiovascular mortality 20
SAVE [6] AMI (100%) ≤ 40% Captopril vs.
placebo		 Total mortality 20 3.5
Cardiovascular mortality 25
Hospitalization for HF 34
TRACE [7] AMI (41%) ≤ 35% Trandolapril vs. placebo All-cause mortality 14 2-4.2
Cardiovascular mortality 14
Progression to severe HF 19
ARBs OPTIMAAL [16] AMI (33%) - Losartan vs.
captopril		 No statistically significant differences for total and cardiovascular mortality - 2.7
VALIANT [18] AMI (28%) ≤ 40% Valsartan vs.
captopril vs. both		 Non-inferior to captopril for total and cardiovascular mortality - 2.3
Beta Blockers SAVE Retrospective Analysis [19] AMI (100%) ≤ 40% Beta blocker vs.
no beta blocker		 Relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality and progression to severe HF of 30% and 21%, respectively - 3.5
SOLVD Retrospective Analysis [20] Chronic (100%) < 35% Beta blocker vs.
no beta blocker		 Relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality of 34%, and all-cause mortality of 26% in combination with enalapril - 3.1
ANZ [21] Chronic HF due to ischemic etiology (30%) < 45% Carvedilol vs.
placebo		 Composite of death or hospitalization 8 1.6
Hospitalization 11
CAPRICORN [22] AMI (53%) ≤ 40% Carvedilol vs.
placebo		 All-cause mortality 34 1.3
Cardiovascular mortality 34
REVERT [24] Chronic (100%) < 40% Metoprolol succinate vs. placebo Improved measures of left ventricular function, including EF - 1
Statins 4S [25] Previous MI (79%) NR Simvastatin vs. placebo Incidence of HF 50 5.4
HF-associated mortality 16
CARE [26] Previous MI (100%) > 25% Pravastatin vs.
placebo		 Composite of fatal coronary events, nonfatal MI, CABG, or PTCA 13 5.0
IDEAL [28] Previous MI (100%) NR Atorvastatin vs. simvastatin New or recurrent hospitalization for HF 167 4.8
Devices MADIT-II [29] History of MI (37%) ≤ 30% ICD vs. medical therapy All-cause mortality 18 1.7
MADIT-CRT [31] Chronic (15%) ≤ 30% ICD-CRT vs.
ICD alone		 Composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal HF events 13 2.4
Nonfatal HF events 12
BLOCK HF [34] Chronic and AV block (16%) ≤ 50% Biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing Composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure events requiring urgent care, or a >15% increase in LV end-systolic volume index 11 3.1
Hospitalization for HF 28
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ACE angiotensin-converting enzyme, ALVD asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, AMI acute myocardial infarction, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, AV atrioventricular, CABG coronary artery bypass grafting, CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy, HF heart failure, ICD automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator, LV left ventricular, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MI myocardial infarction, NNT number-needed-to-treat, NR not reported, PTCA percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplas-ty

ACE INHIBITORS

As one of the few pharmacologic therapies supported by evidence from prospective randomized controlled clinical trials, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are the foundation of management for patients with Stage B heart failure. Likely a result of their impact on the pathophysiologic remodeling process that characterizes progressive heart failure, ACE inhibitors have been shown to improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including progression to symptomatic heart failure. In the prevention arm of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial, a decrease in the incidence of heart failure and hospitalizations for heart failure was observed among patients with ALVD and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% who received enalapril [4], and a 12-year follow-up demonstrated an improvement in mortality among enalapril-treated patients [5]. Two trials investigated the effects of ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In both the Survival And Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) trial and TRAndolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) trial, ACE inhibitors were associated with improvements in all-cause mortality, recurrent cardiovascular events, and progression to heart failure compared to placebo [6, 7].

Whether similar improvements may be expected among patients with preserved ejection fraction remains controversial. Although improved outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality, sudden death, recurrent cardiovascular events, and/or progression to heart failure) have been observed with the use of ACE inhibitors among AMI survivors without documented left ventricular systolic dysfunction [8-10] and in patients at high risk for recurrent events [11, 12], these results have not been replicated among lower-risk patients, such as those who have been revascularized or in whom cardiovascular risk factors are well-controlled [13]. In the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) study, trandolapril failed to improve the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization among patients with stable coronary artery disease, although post-hoc analysis demonstrated a reduction in heart failure as the primary cause for hospitalization or death. As the authors note in their discussion, patients in PEACE were at much lower risk for recurrent events compared to those enrolled in previous trials, as evidenced by fewer cardiovascular risk factors and more widespread use of revascularization and other evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e.g., lipid-lowering agents) [13].

On the basis of these investigations, ACE inhibitors should be administered to all patients with ALVD, an intervention now recognized as a national quality measure in the setting of both AMI and heart failure. Furthermore, ACE inhibitors should be considered in all AMI patients irrespective of ejection fraction, although continued use beyond the initial recovery period (i.e., weeks to months) should be based on patient-specific risk factors and other clinical considerations (e.g., whether or not revascularization was performed, presence or absence of compelling indications such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, or use of other evidence-based therapies, such as antiplatelet drugs or statins).

ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR BLOCKERS

No clinical trials have specifically evaluated angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with ALVD. Among patients with symptomatic heart failure, a number of large randomized controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that ARBs may serve as an acceptable substitute in patients with a history of intolerance to ACE inhibitors, based on comparable reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [14, 15]. However, evidence to support their use in patients with ALVD has been derived primarily from subgroup analysis of two trials in AMI patients with heart failure. In the Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (OPTIMAAL), losartan was not superior to captopril among AMI patients with heart failure, of whom about one-third had ALVD [16]. Notably, the dose of losartan used in OPTIMAAL (50 mg daily) was significantly lower than the recommended target dose (150 mg daily). Given more recent evidence to indicate additional improvement associated with higher losartan doses among symptomatic patients [17], the low dose used in OPTIMAAL may have been responsible for its apparent lack of benefit. In the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT), valsartan was non-inferior to captopril in terms of total and cardiovascular mortality, including among the subgroup of asymptomatic patients [18]. Therefore, while ACE inhibitors should be preferred as first line therapy in patients with ALVD, ARBs may be considered in those with a history of intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

BETA BLOCKERS

Similar to inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, beta blockers may benefit patients with ALVD by way of their inhibition of the remodeling effects mediated by the sympathetic nervous system. Despite overwhelming evidence to support their use in symptomatic heart failure with or without concomitant ischemic heart disease, a dearth of literature exists to support their use in asymptomatic patients, especially those without a history of ischemic heart disease.

Some of the evidence to support the use of beta blockers in the setting of ALVD has been derived from retrospective analyses of the SAVE and SOLVD trials. In the SAVE trial, concomitant use of beta blocker therapy was associated with additive reductions in cardiovascular death and progression to heart failure among asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40% who sustained an AMI [19]. The combination of ACE inhibitors and beta blockers in SOLVD was associated with a synergistic decrease in mortality in addition to improvements in other clinical outcomes among asymptomatic patients with chronic systolic dysfunction [20]. In the Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) trial, an improvement in ejection fraction and reduction in the combined endpoint of death or hospital admission was observed among patients randomized to carvedilol [21]. Similarly, in the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in LV Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial, which enrolled AMI patients with an LVEF ≤ 40%, the administration of carvedilol was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and recurrent cardiovascular events [22, 23].

Evidence to support the role of beta blockers in reversing left ventricular remodeling has been supported in a more recent analysis, the REversal of VEntricular Remodeling with Toprol-XL (REVERT) trial, where metoprolol succinate was associated with improvements in measures of left ventricular function, including ejection fraction, compared to placebo [24]. In contrast to previous investigations, where study populations have been comprised primarily of patients with ischemic etiology, half of the patients enrolled in REVERT had non-ischemic disease. Altogether, while these trials do not provide conclusive evidence of benefit among this population, the addition of beta blockers to ACE inhibitors should be strongly considered among patients with ALVD, even in the absence of ischemic disease.

STATINS

Statins are a cornerstone for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and several trials have also reported their impact on heart failure endpoints. In the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), a reduction in the incidence of heart failure and heart failure-associated mortality was observed with simvastatin in patients with previous AMI or angina but without symptoms of heart failure [25]. In the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial, pravastatin was associated with an improvement in the composite primary endpoint of fatal coronary events and nonfatal myocardial infarction among patients with previous AMI and average plasma cholesterol concentrations (i.e., total cholesterol < 240 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein < 115-174 mg/dL) [26]. Patients with symptoms of heart failure were excluded from the trial, but an improvement in major coronary events (i.e., composite of the primary endpoint and patients receiving coronary-artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) was observed among the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≤ 40%.

Compared to usual doses, intensive statin therapy appears to confer additional improvements in heart failure outcomes. A meta-analysis of six trials (n=110,271) evaluated intensive versus moderate statin therapy in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable CAD, and found that intensive statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality among patients with ACS but not stable CAD [27]. Among the overall cohort, intensive statin therapy was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, ACS, stroke, need for revascularization, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and hospitalization for heart failure. Additionally, in the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) trial, patients with a history of AMI (94% had no history of heart failure) were randomized to usual dose simvastatin (20-40 mg) or high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg); after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics (e.g., age, gender, differences in baseline lipid concentrations) among the 222 patients hospitalized for heart failure, a reduction in new or recurrent heart failure events was observed in the atorvastatin group [28].

Although most of the trials investigating the use of statins in patients with ACS or CAD have not specifically evaluated their impact in patients with ALVD, they should be administered to all patients with a history of AMI in order to prevent recurrent cardiovascular events and progression to symptomatic heart failure. Additionally, given evidence to support a dose-related impact on outcomes following AMI, intensive statin therapy should be favored in patients able to tolerate it.

OTHER PHARMACOLOGIC THERAPIES

No evidence currently exists to support other pharmacologic therapies (i.e., aldosterone antagonists, digoxin, isosorbide dinitrate, hydralazine) commonly employed in patients with asymptomatic heart failure.

DEVICE THERAPIES

Although a more detailed discussion of device therapy is provided in a later chapter, a brief summary of its impact on Stage B patients will be provided here. Among survivors of AMI (> 1 month) with LVEF < 30%, the prophylactic use of an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II) resulted in a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to optimal medical therapy, irrespective of NYHA Class, including among the nearly 40% of patients who were asymptomatic [29]. Similar improvements have also been observed with the combined use of an ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both the REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction (REVERSE) study [30] and Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Trial [31] showed reversed left ventricular remodeling and a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations among patients receiving CRT-D therapy. Additionally, MADIT-CRT also demonstrated reductions in all-cause mortality and nonfatal heart failure events [31]; however, a significant difference was not observed among the subgroup of patients with NYHA Class I heart failure, although this only comprised approximately 15% of the patient population.

Evidence indicates that chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing can result in adverse cardiac remodeling. The Pacing to Avoid Cardiac Enlargement (PACE) trial randomized 177 patients with EF ≥ 45% and indications for pacing to atrial synchronized biventricular pacing or RV pacing. After one year, mean EF was significantly lower and was accompanied by an increase in end-systolic volume in the RV pacing group [32]. Two year follow-up results demonstrated a further decline in EF and increase in end-systolic volume in the RV pacing group [33]. The more recent Biventricular versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK HF) trial consisted of patients with indications for pacing due to atrioventricular block, who were NYHA class I-III and had LVEF ≤ 50%. Patients randomized to biventricular pacing demonstrated an improvement in the composite end point of all-cause mortality, heart failure events requiring urgent care, or a ≥15% increase in LV end-systolic volume index compared to patients randomized to RV pacing. Hospitalizations were also significantly reduced among patients randomized to biventricular pacing. Approximately 16% of the population was asymptomatic, although results for this subgroup were not provided [34].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ALVD represent a population that is at considerable risk for the development of symptomatic heart failure. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with this condition, efforts should be made to identify patients with ALVD in order to monitor and potentially slow disease state progression. Despite the growing number of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic strategies for managing symptomatic heart failure, only limited evidence exists to support their use in patients with ALVD. Based on the available evidence to date, ACE inhibitors (or ARBs in those with a history of intolerance to ACE inhibitors) should be administered to all patients with ALVD in the absence of contraindications. Beta blockers should also be considered in the vast majority of patients, although evidence to support their use is less robust, especially among patients without a history of ischemic disease. Statins should be considered for all patients with a history of AMI irrespective of ejection fraction. Finally, an ICD should be considered for all eligible patients (e.g., those with a history of AMI and ALVD). Biventricular pacemakers should be considered in patients who have indications for pacing for AV block. Further studies are needed to identify therapies aimed at preventing the progression of ALVD to symptomatic heart failure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Lindenfeld J, Albert NM, Walsh MN , et al. HFSA 2010, Com-prehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Card Fail. 2010;16:e1–194. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2010.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang TJ, Evans JC, Vasan RS , et al. Natural history of asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the community. Circulation. 2003;26:108: 977–82. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000085166.44904.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL , et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2013, update a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:e6–e245. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.The SOLVD Investigators.Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:685–91. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199209033271003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jong P, Yusuf S, Bangdiwala SI , et al. Effect of enalapril on 12-year survival and life expectancy in patients with left ven-tricular systolic dysfunction a follow-up study. Lancet. 2003;361(9372):1843–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13501-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Flaker GC , et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction.Results of the sur-vival and ventricular enlargement trial. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:669–77. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199209033271001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Pauly NC , et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial in-farction. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1670–76. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199512213332503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-4):Col-laborative Group.ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial as-sessing early oral captopriloral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1995;345:669–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'infarto Miocardico.GISSI-3: effects of lisinopril and transdermal glyceryl trinitrate singly and together on 6-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1994;343:1115–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ambrosioni E, Borghi C, Magnani B. for the The Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) Study Investi-gators.The effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor zofenopril on mortality and morbidity after anterior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:80–85. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199501123320203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yusuf S, Sleight P, Dagenais G , et al. Effects of an angioten-sin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200001203420301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fox KM. for the EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease In-vestigators.Effi-cacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovas-cular events among patients with stable coronary artery dis-ease randoised double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicen-tre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet. . 2003;362:782–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Rouleau JL , et al. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2058–68. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa042739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cohn JN, Tognoni G. for the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators.A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1667–75. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Swedberg K , et al. Effects of can-desartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors the CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet. 2003;362:772–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14284-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dickstein K, Kjekshus J. for the OPTIMAAL Steering Com-mittee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group.Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction the OPTIMAAL randomised trial Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet. 2002;; 360:752–60. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09895-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Konstam MA, Neaton JD, Poole-Wilson PA , et al. Effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HEAAL study): a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1840–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61913-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Califf RM , et al. Valsartan, capto-pril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893–906. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vantrimpont P, Rouleau JL, Pfeffer M , et al. Additive benefi-cial effects of beta-blockers to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibi-tors in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:229–36. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00489-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Exner DV, Dries DL, Domanski MJ , et al. Beta-adrenergic blocking agent use and mortality in patients with asymptomat-ic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction a post hoc analysis of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunc-tion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:916–23. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00675-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Australia/New Zealand Heart Failure Research Collaborative Group.Randoised placebo-controlled trial of carvedilol in patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease. Lancet. . 1997;349:375–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dargie HJ. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1385–90. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04560-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Research Triangle. Park NC Glax-oSmithKline. 2011. Coreg [package insert]. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Colucci WS, Kolias TJ, Sugg JE , et al. Metoprolol reverses left ventricular remodeling in patients with asymptomatic systolic dys-function the REversal of VEntricular Remodeling with Toprol-XL (REVERT) trial. Circulation. 2007;116:49–56. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.666016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group.Ran-domised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344:1383–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E , et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels.Cholesterol and Re-current Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1001–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199610033351401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Afilalo J, Majdan AA, Eisenberg MJ. Intensive statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary heart dis-ease a comparative meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2007;93:914–21. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.112508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Strandberg TE, Holme I, Tikkanen MJ , et al. Comparative effect of atorvastatin (80 mg) versus simvastatin (20 to 40 mg) in preventing hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with previous myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:381–85. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.01.377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Moss AJ, Zareba W, Andrews ML , et al. Prophylactic implan-tation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and re-duced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877–83. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Linde C, Abraham WT, Daubert C , et al. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1834–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Zareba W , et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1329–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0906431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yu CM, Chan JY, Zhang Q , et al. Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2009;36:2123–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chan JY, Fang F, Zhang Q , et al. Biventricular pacing is superior to right ventricular pacing in bradycardia patients with preserved systolic function 2-year results of the PACE trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2533–40. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Curtis AB, Worley SJ, Sutton MS , et al. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1585–93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Cardiology Reviews are provided here courtesy of Bentham Science Publishers

RESOURCES