This website is intended for UK healthcare professionals only Log in | Register

Tag Archives: angiotensin receptor blockers

Applying PARADIGM-HF to the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice

July 2019 Br J Cardiol 2019;26(suppl 1):S4-S8 doi:10.5837/bjc.2019.s02

Applying PARADIGM-HF to the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice

Pardeep S Jhund, John J V McMurray

Abstract

Introduction The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial demonstrated that the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696), was superior to enalapril in reducing the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%; HFrEF).1,2 The trial was terminated early, on the advice of the independent safety monitoring board, on the basis of clear benefits. These included:1 a 20% relative risk reduction (4.7% absolute risk reduction [ARR

| Full text

August 2017 Br J Cardiol 2017;24:(3) Online First

BCS 2017: spotlight on heart failure

BJC Staff, Dr Richard Crawley, Dr Brian Halliday, Dr Rosita Zakeri

Abstract

Landmark trials in heart failure – 30 years from CONSENSUS With 2017 marking the 30th year since the publication of CONSENSUS,1 which first reported a reduction in mortality with enalapril versus placebo in patients with advanced heart failure (HF), the BCS held a dedicated session to review the seminal clinical trials and advances in chronic heart failure management in this period. Dr Rosita Zakeri (Royal Brompton Hospital, London) reviewed this session for us and spoke to the BJC afterwards. Rosita Zakeri The era of vasodilator therapy for heart failure began in the 1990s. Professor Karl Swedberg (University of Gothenberg, Sweden) began

| Full text
Underuse of beta blockers in patients with heart failure

March 2013 Br J Cardiol 2013;20:11–13 doi:10.5837/bjc.2013.005

Underuse of beta blockers in patients with heart failure

Laxman Dubey, Paul Kalra, Henry Purcell

Abstract

Our letter from Nepal below shows underuse of beta blockers is a widespread problem As outlined in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the treatment of heart failure,1 the pivotal trials with beta blockers were conducted in patients with continuing symptoms and a persistently low ejection fraction (EF), despite treatment with an ACE inhibitor and, in most cases, a diuretic. Despite this, “there is consensus that these treatments are complementary and that a beta blocker and an ACE inhibitor should both be started as soon as possible after diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF)”.1

| Full text
Optimising hypertension treatment: NICE/BHS guideline implementation and audit for best practice

March 2013 Br J Cardiol 2013;20(suppl 1): S1–S16 doi:10.5837/bjc.2013.s01

Optimising hypertension treatment: NICE/BHS guideline implementation and audit for best practice

Dr Terry McCormack, Dr Chris Arden, Dr Alan Begg, Professor Mark Caulfield, Dr Kathryn Griffith, Ms Helen Williams

Abstract

(more…)

| Full text

June 2011 Br J Cardiol 2011;18:111–12

In brief

Abstract

Controversial salt paper published A new European study has caused controversy by suggesting that lowering salt intake may not be beneficial. The study, published recently in JAMA (May 4th 2011 issue), was conducted by a team from the University of Leuven, Belgium. They followed 3,681 participants who were free of cardiovascular disease at baseline for a median of 7.9 years, and found an inverse relationship between cardiovascular deaths and 24-hour sodium excretion (which correlates to salt intake), although systolic blood pressure was higher with higher salt intake. But an editorial in the Lancet (May 12th 2011 issue) criticises the study,

| Full text

February 2011 Br J Cardiol 2011;18:9-10

Heart failure registry looks at mortality with ARBs

BJ Cardio Staff

Abstract

The registry study, published in Journal of the American Medical Association (January 12th, 2011 issue), involved 30,254 patients, of whom 2,500 were taking losartan and 2,639 were taking candesartan. One-year survival was 90% for patients receiving candesartan and 83% for those taking losartan. Five-year survival was 61% and 44%, respectively. In multivariate analysis with adjustment for propensity scores, the hazard ratio for mortality for losartan compared with candesartan was 1.43 (p<0.001). The authors, led by Dr Maria Eklind-Cervenka (South Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden) note that the difference remained significant even after adjustme

| Full text
Close

You are not logged in

You need to be a member to print this page.
Find out more about our membership benefits

Register Now Already a member? Login now
Close

You are not logged in

You need to be a member to download PDF's.
Find out more about our membership benefits

Register Now Already a member? Login now