Why the study?
Do beta-blockers improve clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure?
Do beta-blockers improve clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure?
Accumulated evidence strongly supports the addition of beta-blockers to conventional therapy for the management of mild, moderate, and stable severe chronic heart failure.
Supports beta-blocker addition in chronic HF; extends evidence on symptoms and function but leaves open definitive mortality trials.
Experience accumulated from several large trials strongly suggests that beta-blockers should be used for the management of chronic heart failure[87]. It is appropriate to add beta-blockade to conventional therapy such as diuretics, ACE inhibitors and digoxin, as this was the approach used in the major trials. It is appropriate to treat patients with mild, moderate and, when stable, severe chronic heart failure. The benefits obtained include improvements in left ventricular function, reductions in symptoms and morbidity, improvement of quality of life, and delay of clinical progression, reflected in a reduced need for cardiac transplantation and, probably, a reduction in mortality. beta-blockers are much better tolerated, when used appropriately in selected patients, than was previously supposed. To confirm the improvement in survival recently reported with carvedilol, further prospective trials using different beta-blockers are warranted. No major comparative trials have been carried out between beta-blockers in chronic heart failure, therefore it is not known whether the differences between them are clinically significant. The optimal dose of beta-blocker and the effect in patient groups excluded from or poorly represented in the clinical trials (e.g. elderly patients) have yet to be determined. Placebo-controlled mortality trials with bucindolol (BEST) and bisoprolol (CIBIS-II) are under way[89,90]. A large study of carvedilol versus metoprolol (COMET), added to conventional treatment, is planned.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cleland et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: