Chronic heart failure (HF) will be the disease of the new millennium. The last decade has seen major developments in the management of HF, with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors becoming the cornerstones of therapy by virtue of the reductions in total mortality. However, significant gaps remain. Hospitalization for exacerbations of HF are frequent and account for more than 6 million hospital days from this disease related group. Although a variety of intravenous (IV) agents are available for the management of exacerbations of HF, readmission rates are as high as 20%-47% at 6 months. Acute IV therapy for acute decompensation of chronic HF consists of inotropic agents most of which also have vasodilator properties, vasodilator, and diuretics. In addition, there are newer agents in various developmental stages, especially, calcium sensitizing drugs, vasopressin receptor antagonists, and natriuretic peptides. Despite the multiplicity of agents, there are no well designed, randomized, placebo controlled trials to guide IV inpatient therapy for HF exacerbations. (c)1999 by CHF, Inc.

Background: The growth in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use has been hampered by high morbidity and mortality rates and cost. The purpose of this study was to help improve patient selection for LVAD placement by determining whether the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system, a multiparameter, physiology-based predictor of outcome, could be used to predict outcome after LVAD placement and thus help determine optimum timing of LVAD placement. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort observational study consisting of 2 groups: (1) 50 patients with severe heart failure who did not receive LVAD placement after initial evaluation and (2) 31 patients who did receive LVAD placement. Patients included in the study were in severe heart failure on the basis of 3 of the following: lung crackles, S-3, peripheral edema, ejection fraction < 0.30, systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg, progressive prerenal azotemia, altered level of consciousness, gastrointestinal ischemia or congestion, or persistent although reversible pulmonary hypertension in spite of maximal medical therapy, including intravenous inotropes. The decision for LVAD placement was at the discretion of the attending physician. Results: Both LVAD- and non-LVAD-treated patients were similar in cause of heart failure, APACHE II scores, and other baseline laboratory parameters. Survival time with a log-logistic model was better for LVAD-treated patients, p =.0266. Although Kaplan Meier analysis showed a trend toward better survival rates in the LVAD-treated patient, the Cox proportional hazards revealed that LVAD-treated patients had better survival (relative risk ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.305, 0.110 to 0.892; p =.0219) after adjustment for APACHE II score. Each unit increase in APACHE II independently predicted death (relative risk ratios, 95% confidence interval = 1.139, 1.055 to 1.231; p =.0009). Patients with medium APACHE II (11 to 20) scores in particular benefitted from LVAD treatment. Conclusion: LVAD placement for severe heart failure (not restricted to cardiogenic shock) improves survival. APACHE II can aid in deciding the timing of LVAD placement in patients with heart failure who may not have attained conventional hemodynamic criteria for LVAD placement. Patients who had APACHE II scores between II and 20 derived the greatest benefit from LVAD placement.

BACKGROUND:The growth in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use has been hampered by high morbidity and mortality rates and cost. The purpose of this study was to help improve patient selection for LVAD placement by determining whether the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system, a multiparameter, physiology-based predictor of outcome, could be used to predict outcome after LVAD placement and thus help determine optimum timing of LVAD placement.METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort observational study consisting of 2 groups: (1) 50 patients with severe heart failure who did not receive LVAD placement after initial evaluation and (2) 31 patients who did receive LVAD placement. Patients included in the study were in severe heart failure on the basis of 3 of the following: lung crackles, S3, peripheral edema, ejection fraction < 0.30, systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg, progressive prerenal azotemia, altered level of consciousness, gastrointestinal ischemia or congestion, or persistent although reversible pulmonary hypertension in spite of maximal medical therapy, including intravenous inotropes. The decision for LVAD placement was at the discretion of the attending physician.RESULTS:Both LVAD- and non-LVAD-treated patients were similar in cause of heart failure, APACHE II scores, and other baseline laboratory parameters. Survival time with a log-logistic model was better for LVAD-treated patients, p=.0266. Although Kaplan Meier analysis showed a trend toward better survival rates in the LVAD-treated patient, the Cox proportional hazards revealed that LVAD-treated patients had better survival (relative risk ratio, 95% confidence interval=0.305, 0.110 to 0.892; p=.0219) after adjustment for APACHE II score. Each unit increase in APACHE II independently predicted death (relative risk ratios, 95% confidence interval=1.139, 1.055 to 1.231; p=.0009). Patients with medium APACHE II (11 to 20) scores in particular benefitted from LVAD treatment.CONCLUSION:LVAD placement for severe heart failure (not restricted to cardiogenic shock) improves survival. APACHE II can aid in deciding the timing of LVAD placement in patients with heart failure who may not have attained conventional hemodynamic criteria for LVAD placement. Patients who had APACHE II scores between 11 and 20 derived the greatest benefit from LVAD placement.

Background: The use of outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy in heart transplant candidates is contentious. In addition to concerns about morbidity and mortality rates, the current United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system presently grants no waiting list priority status benefit to candidates who receive intravenous inotropic therapy in the outpatient setting (UNOS status 2), whereas identical therapy given in an intensive care unit setting does increase priority status (UNOS status I). The goal of this study was to determine whether an increase in UNOS waiting list priority status is justified in heart transplant candidates receiving outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy by comparing the waiting list mortality of UNOS status 2 candidates on such therapy with that of UNOS status 2 candidates maintained on oral heart failure agents alone.Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the pretransplantation outcomes of heart transplant candidates initially listed as UNOS status 2, comparing 29 candidates receiving intravenous outpatient inotropic therapy (group 1)to 109 candidates maintained on oral heart failure agents alone (group 2).Results: The waiting list mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (group 1 = 7% vs group 2 = 20%, p.18); however, group 1 patients had greater morbidity rates while awaiting transplantation than group 2 patients. A greater percentage of group 1 than group 2 patients clinically deteriorated to UNOS status 1 while awaiting transplantation (45% vs 11%), resulting in more group I patients undergoing transplantation overall, (59% vs 33%, p =.01) and more group I than group 2 patients undergoing transplantation at a higher priority status, UNOS status 1 (76% vs 33%, p.003). Group 1 patients had more pretransplantation heart failure admissions (1.2 vs 0.6 admissions/total waiting period, p.02) and longer hospital stays (26 +/- 39 vs 8.8 +/- 16 days, p =.03), spent a greater percentage of their total waiting time hospitalized (7% vs 2%, p.003), and were more likely than group 2 patients to receive intravenous inotropic therapy during hospitalization (70% vs 25%, p =.001).Conclusion: This study suggests that heart transplant candidates who require maintenance outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy represent a subgroup of UNOS status 2 candidates with greater waiting list morbidity, but no greater waiting list mortality than candidates who can be maintained on oral heart failure agents alone. However, the current UNOS heart allocation system provides for this increased illness acuity by assigning a higher priority status when necessary. A larger, prospective study is necessary to determine whether a true difference in waiting list mortality rates exists and if an increase in priority status is justified for UNOS status 2 candidates requiring maintenance inotropic therapy.

Background: In heart transplant recipients methotrexate has been shown to reverse recurrent/persistent acute rejection refractory to intensified conventional immunosuppression. This study sought to determine whether methotrexate produces a sustained decline of heart allograft rejection rates and renders rejection rates of patients with a history of recurrent/persistent rejection similar to those of heart transplant recipients without such history.Methods: Rejection, infection, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy were compared in 35 patients treated with methotrexate (12 +/- 9 mg/week for 34 +/- 54 weeks) and 236 patients never given methotrexate. Because the mean time from transplantation to initiation of methotrexate was 9.4 months, patients treated without methotrexate were analyzed for events less than or equal to 9.4 versus > 9.4 months after heart transplantation.Results: Demographics, perioperative and maintenance immunosuppression, and postoperative follow-up time (58 +/- 32 vs 57 +/- 33 months) were similar in the two groups. Rejection rates decreased in both groups but remained significantly higher in the patients treated with methotrexate after initiation of therapy than in the patients treated without methotrexate more than 9.4 months after transplantation (0.15 +/- 0.16 vs 0.06 +/- 0.12 episodes/patient/month; p = 0.0014). Infection rates were higher in patients after methotrexate initiation than in patients treated without methotrexate more than 9.4 months after heart transplantation (0.17 +/- 0.24 vs 0.06 +/- 0.13 episodes/patient/month; p = 0.015). At the end of the follow-up period methotrexate- and non-methotrexate-treated groups did not differ in the percentage of patients with angiographically detectable cardiac allograft vasculopathy (17.1% and 21.2%, respectively) and survival (71.4% and 64.0%, respectively).Conclusions: Even after reversal of rejection by methotrexate, patients requiring methotrexate for the treatment of persistent/recurrent rejection continued to have higher rejection rates than patients not requiring methotrexate. In spire of persistently higher rejection rates, patients treated with methotrexate did not have higher rates of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This finding raises the question whether methotrexate provides a protective influence on the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in this high-risk group.

Maximal exercise oxygen consumption ((V)over dotO(2max)) was measured in patients with chronic congestive heart failure undergoing evaluation for heart transplantation. Although (V) over dotO(2max) correlated with survival for the group as a whole, it did not demonstrate survival discrimination for patients in the intermediate range ((V) over dotO(2max) = 12 to 17 ml/kg/min) and should therefore not be used as a benchmark test for determination of appropriateness for cardiac transplantation in this group of patients.

To evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of perioperative OKT3 in cardiac transplant patients receiving triple-drug immunosuppression, patients who underwent cardiac transplantation between July 1, 1988 and December 31, 1989 (n = 33) and who received perioperative OKT3 were retrospectively compared with patients who underwent transplantation between January 1, 1990 and June 30, 1991 (n = 46), and who received no perioperative anti-T cell therapy. To allow similar follow-up, data were analyzed through June 30, 1990 for the OKT3 group and through December 31,1991 for the no anti-T cell therapy group. Patients in the no anti-T cell therapy group waited longer for a donor organ; other pretransplant characteristics did not differ. The azathioprine dose 1 month after transplant was higher in the no anti-T cell therapy group (144 ± 63 mg vs 109 ± 55 mg, p=0.016); other post-transplant immunosuppression was similar. The incidence of total and treated rejection and the time to the first rejection did not differ between the groups. The OKT3 group had a higher number of infections (0.8 ± 0.9 vs 0.3 ± 0.3, p=0.006) and intravenously treated infections (0.5 ± 0.6 vs 0.1 ± 0.2, p=0.004) per patient per month. Cytomegalovirus infection developed in 46% of the OKT3 group versus 22% of the no anti-T cell therapy group (p = 0.025). Patient survival did not differ between the groups. Thus, an immunosuppressive regimen that includes perioperative OKT3 increases infections, especially cytomegalovirus infections, without decreasing or delaying rejection or increasing survival.

BACKGROUND The diffuse nature of cardiac allograft vasculopathy makes early detection of the disease by traditional noninvasive methods or coronary angiography difficult. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a relation between abnormalities in vessel wall morphology, as assessed by intracoronary ultrasound, and a decreased vasodilatory response to the endothelium-dependent vasodilator papaverine hydrochloride and if cardiac allograft vasculopathy detected by coronary angiography is associated with specific intracoronary ultrasound findings. METHODS AND RESULTS Twenty-three heart transplant recipients underwent 25 intracoronary ultrasound studies and 24 studies of coronary vasomotor tone 10 days to 8.3 years after surgery using a 20-mHz intracoronary ultrasound catheter. The studies were divided in two groups according to the presence (n = 7, group 1) or absence (n = 18, group 2) of angiographically evident cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Qualitative assessment of vessel wall morphology and quantitative analysis of the vasodilator response to the injection of papaverine hydrochloride into the coronary artery distal to the imaging site were performed off-line, and results for the two study groups were compared. A significantly higher percentage of patients with than without angiographic evidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy had a three-interface vessel wall morphology by intracoronary ultrasound (100% versus 11%, P < .001). In two recipients who underwent two serial studies, the appearance of three interfaces in the vessel wall or a progressive thickening of the inner interface of the vessel wall occurred in conjunction with the appearance of angiographic cardiac allograft vasculopathy. The vasodilator response to papaverine was less in patients with than in those without angiographically evident cardiac allograft vasculopathy both in terms of absolute and relative increases in lumen diameter (+0.1 +/- 0.12 mm versus +0.3 +/- 0.17 mm, P < .05, and +5.1 +/- 5.3% versus +8.2 +/- 5.3%, P = NS) and lumen cross-sectional area (+0.5 +/- 0.6 mm2 versus +1.7 +/- 1.1 mm2, P < .02, and +7.1 +/- 8.8% versus 16.6 +/- 11.0%, P = .055), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Intracoronary ultrasound assessment of vessel wall morphology and evaluation of vascular response to endothelium-dependent vasodilators are useful techniques for detecting cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

Heart failure causes significant morbidity and mortality in women, especially elderly women. Risk factors for the development of heart failure in women differ from those in men, with hypertension and diabetes playing a greater role in women and ischemic heart disease a greater role in men. However, the risk of developing heart failure after symptomatic myocardial infarction is higher in women than in men. Data from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction Registry suggest that event rates after the diagnosis of heart failure are greater in women than in men. Only 13% of the patients included in the major heart failure mortality trails were women, and data for the women in these trials have not been reported separately. The survival of women who have undergone heart transplantation is similar to that of men; however, women have more rejection and are more likely to require maintenance corticosteroid therapy. Data are critically needed to determine whether the treatment of heart failure in women, whether medically or by heart transplantation, requires a special approach.

The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with the development of a persistently depressed cardiac output during the first year after cardiac transplantation. With this aim in mind, the records of 133 consecutive patients undergoing orthotopic cardiac transplantation and surviving for > or = 1 year after transplantation were reviewed. For each patient, the mean cardiac index for each of the 3-month periods, 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months after transplantation was calculated. Of the 133 patients, 19 (14%) had a mean cardiac index < 2.4 l/min/m2 during > or = 3 of these 3-month periods. The pre- and post-transplantation clinical, immunologic, and hemodynamic data of these 19 patients (study group) were compared with the remaining 114 patients (control group). Compared with the control group, the patients in the study group were older (56 +/- 5 vs. 46 +/- 15 years; p = 0.0001), more frequently had ischemic heart disease as the original diagnosis (58 vs. 37%; p < 0.05), had a lower preoperative cardiac index (1.91 +/- 0.53 vs. 2.71 +/- 1.0 l/min/m2; p = 0.0001), more frequently did not receive perioperative anti-T cell therapy (47 vs. 25%; p = 0.046), and had a greater median number of infections during the first year after transplantation (5 vs. 3; p = 0.027). However, only one factor--a low preoperative cardiac index--emerged as an independent predictor of the development of a persistently depressed cardiac index during the first year after transplantation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

To further elucidate the significance of endocardial infiltrates in heart transplant patients, the presence, frequency, and type of endocardial infiltrates were evaluated in 5026 endomyocardial biopsy specimens obtained from 200 heart transplant patients 0 to 75 months after heart transplantation. The relationship of endocardial infiltrates to immunologic, clinical, and demographic variables was then explored. Endocardial infiltrates were detected in 557 endomyocardial biopsy specimens (11%) from 117 heart transplant patients (58%) at 6.3 +/- 9.4 months (x +/- SD; range, 0 to 49 months) after heart transplantation. Heart transplant patients with endocardial infiltrates were younger (p = 0.03), had a greater incidence of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy before heart transplantation (p = 0.05), and included a greater percentage of females (p < 0.05). Both total and treated rejection rates were significantly higher in patients with endocardial infiltrates versus those without endocardial infiltrates (p = 0.0001). Rejection on the subsequent endomyocardial biopsies was more often present in endocardial biopsy specimens with endocardial infiltrates than in those without endocardial infiltrates, both in the presence (37% versus 24%; p < 0.001) and absence (33% versus 19%; p < 0.0001) of concomitant findings of rejection. No association was identified between endocardial infiltrates and posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cytomegalovirus infection, Epstein-Barr virus infection, or cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Multivariate regression analysis confirmed that the occurrence of endocardial infiltrates is associated with rejection when adjustment is made for patient's age, gender, heart disease before transplantation, follow-up time, and number of endomyocardial biopsies after heart transplantation (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: (1) Endocardial infiltrates may occur with or without associated endomyocardial biopsy findings of rejection. (2) The highly significant association between endocardial infiltrates and endomyocardial biopsy findings of rejection suggests that endocardial infiltrates may be a manifestation of rejection. (3) The higher frequency of endocardial infiltrates in younger and female heart transplant patients, groups that are known to be at higher risk for rejection, lends further support to this hypothesis. (4) Because endocardial infiltrates, even in the absence of endomyocardial biopsy findings of rejection, predict subsequent rejection, large-scale prospective studies are needed to determine whether the finding of endocardial infiltrates on endomyocardial biopsy warrants closer rejection surveillance or intensification of immunosuppression.

Several small studies have suggested beneficial effects of long-term beta-blocker treatment in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Our large multicentre study aimed to find out whether metoprolol improves overall survival and morbidity in this disorder.383 subjects with heart failure from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction < 0.40) were randomly assigned placebo or metoprolol. 94% were in New York Heart Association functional classes II and III, and 80% were receiving background treatment. A test dose of metoprolol (5 mg twice daily) was given for 2-7 days; those tolerating this dose (96%) entered randomisation. Study medication was increased slowly from 10 mg to 100-150 mg daily. There were 34% (95% CI - 6 to 62%, p = 0.058) fewer primary end points in the metoprolol than the placebo group; 2 and 19 patients, respectively, deteriorated to the point of needing transplantation and 23 and 19 died. The change in ejection fraction from baseline to 12 months was significantly greater with metoprolol than with placebo (0.13 vs 0.06, p < 0.0001). Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure decreased more from baseline to 12 months with metoprolol than with placebo (5 vs 2 mm Hg, p = 0.06). Exercise time at 12 months was significantly greater (p = 0.046) in metoprolol-treated than in placebo-treated patients.In patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, treatment with metoprolol prevented clinical deterioration, improved symptoms and cardiac function, and was well tolerated.

This study shows that perioperative OKT3 provides no benefit in terms of the time of onset or frequency of rejection or patient survival. However, it does result in an increased incidence of infection, particularly CMV infection. Thus, the risk/benefit ratio of perioperative OKT3 does not appear favorable. However, a multicenter, randomized trial including a larger number of patients and longer patient follow-up will be required to definitively answer the question.