| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2004;110:2559-2561.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
From the Hatter Institute for Cardiology Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Correspondence to Dr Lionel H. Opie, Hatter Institute for Cardiology Research, Chris Barnard Building, Cape Heart Center Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, 7925 Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. E-mail opie@capeheart.uct.ac.za
Key Words: Editorials heart failure angiotensin renin receptors, adrenergic, beta
An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract. |
Stop it at the start; its late for medicine to be prepared when disease has grown strong through long delays. Ovid, Remedia Amoris
A crucial experimental study in 1985 showed that the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) captopril did more than reduce the after- and preload on the heart in failure; captopril also improved remodeling by lessening the degree of left ventricular (LV) dilation.1 A series of powerful clinical studies starting in 1987 established the crucial role of ACE inhibition in severe heart failure such that it almost became unethical to test other modalities of heart failure therapies except as add-on therapies. Thus, it was difficult to know whether the advent of the angiotensin II subtype I receptor blockers (ARBs) brought improvement beyond those of standard ACEi therapy. The most practical approach was to add an ARB such as valsartan to the therapeutic regimen of patients, 86% of whom were already receiving an ACEi.2 In the small non-ACEi group, valsartan appeared to be even more effective, but the limited size of the group made it difficult to be sure. Furthermore, the addition of valsartan to the small number of patients already being treated with ACEi and ß-blockade appeared to be harmful. These defects have been remedied by another ARB, candesartan, which was evaluated in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) series of studies. The study by Young et al3 represents the effects of candersartan versus placebo given to a prespecified subgroup of patients
Related Article:
Circulation 2004 110: 2618-2626.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. Stenvinkel, J. J. Carrero, J. Axelsson, B. Lindholm, O. Heimburger, and Z. Massy Emerging Biomarkers for Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in the Chronic Kidney Disease Patient: How Do New Pieces Fit into the Uremic Puzzle? Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(2): 505 - 521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. G. Haworth The cell and molecular biology of right ventricular dysfunction in pulmonary hypertension Eur. Heart J. Suppl., December 1, 2007; 9(suppl_H): H10 - H16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Most, H. Seifert, E. Gao, H. Funakoshi, M. Volkers, J. Heierhorst, A. Remppis, S. T. Pleger, B. R. DeGeorge Jr, A. D. Eckhart, et al. Cardiac S100A1 Protein Levels Determine Contractile Performance and Propensity Toward Heart Failure After Myocardial Infarction Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1258 - 1268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2004 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |