Why the study?
Is carvedilol safe and well-tolerated in patients with chronic heart failure when managed by general practitioners?
Is carvedilol safe and well-tolerated in patients with chronic heart failure when managed by general practitioners?
Carvedilol is safe, well-tolerated, and improves symptoms in CHF patients when initiated and managed by general practitioners.
May support carvedilol initiation by GPs in heart failure; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Betablockers are a cornerstone in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The purpose of the present study was to assess safety and tolerability of carvedilol in CHF-patients. METHODS: 66 general practitioners, who were supervised by a local cardiologist, enrolled 151 CHF-patients. All patients were on standard therapy with ACE-inhibitors and diuretics. Carvedilol treatment was started with 3.125 mg twice daily and slowly uptitrated in 2-week intervals to 2x25 mg per day. Mean follow-up was 12 weeks. RESULTS: 145 of the 151 patients (96%) finished the study according to protocol, six patients were lost to follow-up (4%). 59 patients (41%) experienced minor and nine (6%) serious adverse events. 68 were under maximal therapy with 50 mg daily, 33 received 25 mg, and 15 12.5 mg. Overall tolerability was good and NYHA-class fell significantly from 2.2 to 1.8 (P<0.001). Mean heart rate decreased from 78 to 69 bpm (P<0.001), mean systolic blood pressure from 137 to 132 mmHg (P<0.001) and mean diastolic blood pressure from 80 to 76 mmHg (P<0.001). Quality of life significantly improved under carvedilol with a reduction in the Minnesota living with heart failure score from 1.28 to 0.88 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol is well tolerated in CHF-patients treated by general practitioners. Serious adverse events and hospitalisations are rare. Thus, carvedilol is a safe drug in the treatment of CHF-patients and can be easily initiated and managed by the general practitioner.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rickli et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: