Use of beta-blockers in older adults with chronic heart failure

Most heart failure patients are older adults. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with systolic heart failure. However, the annual mortality rate in patients with systolic heart failure receiving ACE inhibitors is about 12%. Beta-blockers further reduce mortality rate by an additional 35% to 65%. Because of potential adverse effects, the rate of beta-blocker use is likely to be low in older adults with systolic heart failure. In this article, we review the findings of the major beta-blocker trials in systolic heart failure and discuss the potential benefits and adverse effects of beta-blockers, along with various practical aspects of their use in older adults with systolic heart failure. Subgroup analyses of these trials suggest that the survival benefits of beta-blockers observed in the main trials are also observed in persons 65 years of age and older. However, data are limited for heart failure patients 85 years of age and older. About half of the older adults with heart failure do not have systolic heart failure, and currently there is no evidence that beta-blockers also improve survival in these patients. Beta-blockers might play a beneficial role in heart failure patients without systolic heart failure by reducing high blood pressure, high heart rate, or myocardial ischemia, conditions known to impair ventricular relaxation. Adequate knowledge of the commonly used beta-blockers, along with careful patient selection and close monitoring for adverse effects will allow safe initiation and continuation of beta-blocker use for older adults with systolic heart failure. It is likely that lower doses of beta-blockers are as effective as higher doses.     

Overview of the results of recent beta blocker trials

Results of the studies published or reported within the last 2 years provide convincing evidence that beta-blockers can decrease mortality in patients with chronic symptomatic heart failure because of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS)-II and Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF) trials showed a 34% reduction in all-cause death with bisoprolol and metoprolol therapy in patients with class II-III heart failure. Data from Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS), with a 35% mortality reduction, extended this benefit to class IV patients treated with carvedilol who do not require intravenous diuretics or positive inotropes. Ongoing beta-blocker studies address new topics, such as treatment of older patients, in whom diastolic heart failure may be more common, and direct comparison of different drugs. Although the use of beta-blockers for heart failure tends to increase, implementation of the knowledge from the trials in clinical practice still remains a challenge.     

The effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality in a population-based cohort of 11,942 elderly patients with heart failure

PURPOSE: Randomized trials have shown that beta-blockers prevent morbidity and mortality in heart failure. However, whether beta-blockers are effective in older patients or those with conditions that would have led to their exclusion from these trials remains unclear. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The associations between beta-blocker use and outcomes were examined in a population-based cohort of 11,942 older (age >/=65 years) patients with incident heart failure between 1994 and 1999. Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for propensity scores, age, sex, comorbid conditions, and other medications. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) age of the patients was 79 +/- 8 years, 5819 (49%) were men, and 2569 (22%) had Charlson comorbidity scores of at least 2. During follow-up (median, 21 months), 3539 patients were hospitalized for heart failure and 6757 died. Overall, 1162 patients received beta-blockers. After adjustment, beta-blocker use was associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 0.80), mortality due to heart failure (HR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.90), and hospitalizations for heart failure (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.92). These endpoints were less frequent in patients treated with beta-blockers than in untreated patients in all examined subgroups. All doses of beta-blockers were associated with benefit, but there was a trend towards greater benefit in patients prescribed higher doses. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of beta-blockers seen in randomized trials extend to older patients and to those with conditions that would have led to their exclusion from the trials. There is a need for a randomized trial comparing different doses of beta-blockers in heart failure.     

Efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers in the management of left ventricular systolic dysfunction according to race,gender, and diabetic status: a meta-analysis of major clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause mortality in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction according to gender, race, and the presence of diabetes. BACKGROUND: Major randomized clinical trials have established that ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers have life-saving benefits in patients with LV systolic dysfunction. Most patients enrolled in these trials were Caucasian men. Whether an equal effect is achieved in women, non-Caucasians, and patients with major comorbidities has not been established. METHODS: The authors performed a meta-analysis of published and individual patient data from the 12 largest randomized clinical trials of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers to produce random effects estimates of mortality for subgroups. RESULTS: Data support beneficial reductions in all-cause mortality for the use of beta-blockers in men and women, the use of ACE inhibitors and some beta-blockers in black and white patients, and the use of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers in patients with or without diabetes. Women with symptomatic LV systolic dysfunction probably benefit from ACE inhibitors, but women with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction may not have reduced mortality when treated with ACE inhibitors (pooled relative risk = 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 1.22). The pooled estimate of three beta-blocker studies supports a beneficial effect in black patients with heart failure, but one study assessing bucindolol reported a nonsignificant increase in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers provide life-saving benefits in most of the subpopulations assessed. Women with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction may not achieve a mortality benefit when treated with ACE inhibitors.     

beta-Blocker therapy in heart failure

Heart failure is an important public health problem and one for which morbidity and mortality remain high despite treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. A large number of clinical trials examining the effects of beta-blockers in the treatment of heart failure have now been performed. Two large-scale clinical trials have recently confirmed significant survival benefits with these agents, with effects that are additive to those achieved with ACE inhibitor therapy. These trials have now established beta-blocker therapy as an important part of standard heart failure treatment. The clinical use of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure requires careful translation of the randomized controlled trials into everyday clinical practice. Patient selection is key to the safe use of beta-blockers. Patients who may be suitable for beta-blockade therapy include those with mild-moderate heart failure due to left ventricular systolic impairment, those who are receiving adequate dose of diuretics and ACE inhibitors and those whose clinical condition is stable at the time of initiation of the beta-blocker. Survival benefits have been demonstrated with bisoprolol, carvedilol and metoprolol. Whether different beta-blockers have important clinical differences with regard to clinical end-points is as yet uncertain. beta-Blockers should be initiated at low dose, with titration of dose over several weeks and careful clinical monitoring for potential adverse effects, such as hypotension or worsening congestion. This careful application of the clinical trials into clinical practice will allow the safe use of this effective treatment for patients with chronic heart failure.     

Are beta‐blockers effective in patients who develop heart failure soon after myocardial infarction? A meta‐regression analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: The great majority of post-infarction studies of beta-blockers were conducted in an era when these agents were widely held to be contra-indicated for the management of heart failure. We now know that beta-blockers are highly effective for the management of patients with chronic stable heart failure. However, there remains uncertainty about their role in the setting of post-infarction heart failure and ventricular dysfunction. AIM: the primary objective in this paper, was to investigate the extent to which heart failure or evidence of major cardiac dysfunction influenced outcome in previous trials of beta-blockers in heart failure after myocardial infarction. METHODS: We assessed the extent to which the inclusion of patients with heart failure or major cardiac dysfunction influenced outcome in randomised trials of long-term use of beta-blockade after myocardial infarction. The primary analysis was to assess the extent to which the proportion of patients included in each trial with heart failure influenced the relative odds of all-cause mortality in the trials. All randomised trials without crossover with treatment lasting more than one month and with 50 or more patients were considered. All those that provided information on the proportion of patients with heart failure or major cardiac dysfunction in the original or subsequent articles were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Overall treatment with a beta-blocker was associated with a 22.6% reduction in the odds of death (95% C1 11-32.3%). There were very few data on the effects of beta-blockers after myocardial infarction in patients with documented left ventricular systolic dysfunction. In the analysis that included heart failure as a factor, treatment with a beta-blocker was associated with a non-significant interaction with the presence of heart failure. However, because the group including heart failure patients were at higher risk, the absolute benefit of treatment with beta-blockers appeared greater in this group. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the relative benefit of beta-blockers on mortality after a myocardial infarction is similar in the presence or absence of heart failure but that the absolute benefit may be greater in the former. However, as current clinical practice has changed radically from the time when the majority of these trials were conducted, further trial evidence would be desirable.     

Narrative review: pharmacotherapy for chronic heart failure: evidence from recent clinical trials

Heart failure is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical trials over the past 2 decades have revolutionized the care of patients with systolic heart failure, and substantial data support the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, angiotensin-receptor blockers, and aldosterone blockers in the management of this serious condition. This article reviews the evidence on the pharmacologic treatment of heart failure, with a focus on recent clinical trials.     

Beta-blocker treatment of chronic systolic heart failure improves prognosis even in patients meeting one or more exclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF study.

AIMS: Improved prognosis of patients with chronic systolic heart failure by treatment with beta-blockers has been shown in several randomized controlled multicentre trials. However, in clinical practice only a part of heart failure patients meet the inclusion criteria of these trials. The present study evaluates whether reduction of mortality by beta-blockers also can be achieved in patients presenting one or more exclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Ludwigshafen Heart Failure Registry 675 patients with chronic systolic heart failure consecutively enrolled between January 1995 and June 2004 were divided in two groups either meeting the inclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF trial ('trial patients': n = 278, 60% treated with beta-blockers) or not ('non-trial patients': n = 397; 51% treated with beta-blockers). The distribution of the MERIT-HF exclusion criteria in the group of 'non-trial patients' was as follows: acute myocardial infarction 9.6%; systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg 7.5%; chronic obstructive lung disease 33.2%; other serious diseases potentially limiting prognosis 16.9%; acutely performed or planned ICD, bypass surgery, PCI, heart transplantation: 17.1, 15.9, 7.8, and 4.8%, respectively. Median follow-up was 31.3 months (upper/lower quartile 16.3/50.0 months). All-cause mortality was significantly reduced by beta-blocker treatment not only in 'trial patients' (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86) but also in 'non-trial patients' (adjusted hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.97). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice only the smaller part of the population to be treated for chronic systolic heart failure meets the inclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF study. However, beta-blocker treatment is associated with a significantly reduced long-term mortality even in patients meeting one or more exclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF study.     

Beta-blocker therapy in heart failure in the elderly

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a common and disabling condition with morbidity and mortality that increase dramatically with advancing age. There is some evidence available about beta-blocker therapy in the elderly. The Study of the Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalisation in Seniors with Heart Failure (SENIORS) and retrospective subgroup (elderly) analyses of landmark clinical trials in stable systolic heart failure have provided data supporting the use of beta-blocker as baseline therapy in heart failure in the elderly. However, beta-blocker is still less frequently used in elderly compared to younger patients. There are many reasons, one of which is that available data on elderly patients are not as convincing as those pertaining to their younger counterparts. There is uncertainty or disagreement about whether beta-blockers are equally beneficial and well tolerated in elderly heart failure patients as in younger ones. In other words, the level of evidence regarding beta-blocker therapy in the elderly is not regarded as high as that in younger patients. Indeed, the senior heart failure population, which in fact comprises the majority of all heart failure patients, is in general less well studied, both experimentally and clinically, than younger populations. Both clinical studies and experience indicate good tolerability in the use of beta-blocker in the elderly. Although beta-blockers are well tolerated by the elderly, target doses (based on previous clinical trials) may be difficult to achieve. The question is whether we should use the same target dose in the elderly as that in younger patients. Theoretically, the most effective dose is the highest dose tolerated, which may differ across different age groups. Is it time to abandon the "target dose" for the "highest dose tolerated"? The time has come to carry out active research to achieve better documentation of evidence based heart failure management in the elderly for the benefit of a large number of elderly patients with heart failure. We need clinical trial data that show definite improvement in outcomes as well as a clear-cut, favourable benefit-risk analysis involving beta-blockers in typical older heart failure patients irrespective of comorbidity and polypharmacy. Until the above is available, it may be wiser to adhere to beta-blocker therapy, which at present is better documented than other heart failure therapies in the elderly.     

Applying standard therapies to new targets: the use of ACE inhibitors and B-blockers for heart failure in adults with congenital heart disease

Increasingly, patients and clinicians are being confronted with congestive heart failure (CHF) as a late complication of congenital heart disease. However, medical management of heart failure in this patient group represents a challenge because of complex hemodynamics and a lack of evidence from large randomized controlled trials to guide therapy. This article will review the evidence of the use angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers (BBs) in left heart failure, discuss the mechanisms of heart failure as they pertain to congenital heart disease and review the limited literature of the use of neurohormonal antagonists in congenital heart disease. Some recommendations for use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers in heart failure due various congenital heart lesions are offered. Well-designed clinical trials are urgently needed to extend the impressive reductions in morbidity and mortality achieved with neurohormonal blockade in left ventricular (LV) heart failure to adults with congenital heart disease.     

Beta-blockers: the new standard of therapy for mild heart failure

Many physicians are reluctant to prescribe beta-blockers to patients with mild heart failure, especially when standard therapy (diuretics and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, with or without digitalis glycosides) seems to be effective at relieving symptoms. However, current first-line medications for heart failure either ignore or incompletely inhibit adrenergic activation, one of the primary contributors to progressive left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Thus, even effective standard "triple" therapy does not safeguard the patient against further catastrophic deterioration of cardiac performance. Clinical trials have shown that the use of beta-blockers in addition to standard therapy improves left ventricular function, reduces hospitalizations, and-in the cases of bisoprolol, long-acting metoprolol, and carvedilol-improves survival in patients with chronic heart failure. In addition, carvedilol has been found to significantly slow disease progression even in mildly symptomatic patients. Though achieving beta-blockade in patients with heart failure requires extra effort by the clinician (appropriate patient selection, optimization of background therapy, initiating drug treatment at low doses, and titrating slowly with careful vigilance for early signs of clinical instability), the cost is small compared with the consequence of postponing adrenergic intervention. The educational objective of this article is to provide the primary care physician with a review of the current understanding of the pathophysiological characteristics underlying chronic systolic heart failure, the clinical benefits of administering beta-blockers during the early stages of heart failure, and the practical considerations of initiating therapy.     

Sudden Cardiac Death in Dilated Cardiomyopathy – Therapeutic Options

BACKGROUND: Despite routine use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers and spironolactone in patients with heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), these patients still have a considerable annual mortality rate of 5-10%. Sudden unexpected death accounts for up to 50% of all deaths and is most often due to rapid ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and less often due to bradyarrhythmias or asystole. THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS: The use of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure has been shown to improve overall mortality considerably. This survival benefit has been demonstrated for bisoprolol, metoprolol and carvedilol. Therefore, one of these three beta-blocking agents should be administered routinely starting with low doses in all patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure in addition to ACE inhibitors, unless there is a contraindication to beta-blocker use. In addition, NYHA class IV heart failure patients have been shown to benefit from carvedilol therapy, if tolerated. The conflicting results of GESICA and CHF-STAT studies do not support a strategy of "prophylactic" amiodarone therapy in patients with DCM in order to prevent sudden cardiac death. Despite growing evidence that implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy results in improved overall survival py preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at high risk for serious arrhythmic events, arrhythmia risk stratification with regard to prophylactic ICD implantation remains highly controversial in patients with DCM. CONCLUSION: This review describes potential arrhythmia mechanisms in DCM and summarizes the results of antiarrhythmic drug trials and of prophylactic ICD trials in patients with heart failure as well as our knowledge concerning arrhythmia risk stratification in patients with DCM.     

Heart failure update 2010 and current ESC guidelines

Chronic heart failure may be caused by systolic pump failure and/or impairment of diastolic filling of the ventricles. Standard pharmacotherapy of systolic heart failure includes an ACE inhibitor, betablocker, diuretics and in patients with severe symptoms a low-dose aldosterone antagonist. An AT(1) receptor blocker is indicated in those not tolerating ACE inhibitors. If patients remain in functional class NYHA III-IV despite optimal medication and have cardiac dyssynchrony, biventricular pacing may improve symptoms and prognosis. While evidence-based treatment significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in systolic heart failure, hardly any results of clinical trials are available for diastolic heart failure. Therefore, therapy in patients with diastolic heart failure remains symptomatic in most cases.     

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents in heart failure: benefits of vasodilating and non-vasodilating agents according to patients' characteristics: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure, beta-adrenergic blocking agents reduce overall and cardiovascular mortality. This meta-analysis aimed at clarifying their effect on sudden death, the magnitude of their benefit according to the cause of heart failure, and whether there is any difference between vasodilating and nonvasodilating agents. METHODS: Randomized, clinical trials were included if they evaluated a beta-adrenergic blocking agent without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, included a control group receiving placebo or standard treatment, evaluated mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, and lasted at least 8 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-one trials with 5,849 patients (3,130 receiving beta-blockers) were included. Median length of treatment was 6 months. Most patients had mild or moderate heart failure and were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and digitalis. The beta-blockers significantly reduced overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and mortality due to pump failure and sudden death by 34% to 39%. The decrease in overall mortality in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) (30%) was no different from that among patients with non-IHD (26%) (P = .08). The reduction in overall mortality was greater with vasodilating than with nonvasodilating agents (45% vs 27%; P = .007), particularly in patients without IHD (62%), compared with those with IHD (22%; P =.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure, beta-blockers reduce total and cardiovascular mortality at the expense of a decrease in mortality due to pump failure and sudden death. The magnitude of the benefit is similar in patients with IHD and in those with non-IHD. Vasodilating beta-blockers have a greater effect on overall mortality than nonvasodilating agents, particularly in patients with non-IHD.     

An 8-year follow-up study of acute admissions with heart failure in a multiethnic population

In 1994, we reported a cross-sectional survey of acute heart failure admissions to a city centre hospital serving a multiethnic population and found ethnic differences in aetiological factors and short-term (in-patient) mortality. We analysed long-term mortality data for this original survey cohort after 8 years' follow-up. At 8 years' follow-up, the total mortality was 90.5% amongst Europeans and 87.0% amongst non-Europeans (log rank test, P=0.0705). The non-European patients had significantly better survival at all time points until 6 years, after which the survival curves start to converge. In univariate analysis, age <75.6 years (that is, the median age of the whole cohort), use of beta-blockers, use of ACE inhibitors, and absence of atrial fibrillation were significantly associated with increased survival. In addition, patients who had had an echocardiographic examination had significantly prolonged survival when compared to those who did not. Using a Cox multiple regression analysis, age, renal impairment, atrial fibrillation, absence of echocardiography, absence of beta-blockers or ACE inhibitor use (and not ethnicity) remained significant predictors of mortality at 8 years. While this follow-up study has suggested that survival following admission for acutely decompensated heart failure is not different between different ethnic groups when corrected for age, it is clear from the younger age of heart failure patients from ethnic minority groups and the relatively high prevalence, that the burden of heart failure is greater in these populations. Future observational and therapeutic trials in heart failure should include sufficient numbers of participants from ethnic minority groups to ensure that the results can be applied to the population at risk.     

Heart failure in elderly patients

Several structural and functional changes contribute to heart failure in elderly patients: an age dependent increase in sympathetic nervous activity, left ventricular wall diameter, myocardial fibrosis and apoptosis, micro- and macrovascular coronary sclerosis, aortic stiffness. As a consequence, diastolic, but also systolic heart failure is a frequent finding in elderly patients. The relation of systolic to diastolic heart failure is clearly shifted towards diastolic heart failure in elderly patients, especially in women. Mortality is increased with systolic dysfunction in elderly patients compared to younger heart failure patients. Mortality is less with diastolic dysfunction, but still higher compared to elderly without heart failure. In addition, morbidity is increased both with diastolic and systolic heart failure in elderly patients. Cognitive dysfunction is a frequent finding. After exclusion of specific cardiac and extracardiac reasons for dyspnoea, drug therapy of systolic heart failure in elderly is similar to younger patients. However, the physiological decrease of renal function and the more frequent renal impairment in elderly patients with heart failure needs to be considered. Guideline recommendations for drug therapy are based in most cases on studies conducted in younger systolic heart failure patients. A recent meta-analysis of randomized beta-blocker trials suggests improved survival with beta-blockers even in the elderly subgroup. Guidelines for the treatment of diastolic heart failure are available only recently. The term heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been proposed instead of diastolic heart failure. Given the increased morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with heart failure and normal LVEF, therapy should include general measures, such as physical activity, weight reduction, volume restriction. Specific therapy includes optimal control of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, diuretics, nitrates, and frequency-control. However, randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of specific therapies in heart failure with normal LVEF are still missing.     

Angiotensin type-1 receptor blockers in heart failure

Chronic heart failure is a common condition with a poor prognosis, usually associated with poor exercise tolerance and debilitating symptoms despite optimal modern therapy. Standard therapy includes diuretics, digoxin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers. Despite this, many patients remain symptomatic, and interest is high as to whether the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) would offer further advantage to a patient already receiving quadruple therapy. In addition, some patients are intolerant of ACEIs, and for this group the ARBs seem a logical choice. This article reviews the evidence for the use of ARBs as a class in heart failure concentrating on clinical recommendations and clinical needs and evidence rather than purely on statistical issues of significance in trials. The trials to date have demonstrated clearly similar hemodynamic effects to those seen with ACEIs and variety of ancillary benefits such as improvements in endothelial function, anti-thrombotic effects, and effects on neurohormonal inhibition. There is consistent evidence of a preservation of exercise tolerance when patients with heart failure are crossed over from stable ACEI therapy, and when added to ACEIs exercise tolerance appears to increase with ARBs. In terms of major outcomes, the two largest trials, Elite-II and Val-Heft, demonstrate that angiotensin receptor blockers probably have a clinical role in improving mortality and morbidity as an alternative to ACEIs in those patients unable to tolerate these agents, which remain, however, the first choice in unselected patients with heart failure. There is a worrying suggestion of a negative interaction when ARBs are added to beta-blockers, which is a reason for caution in using the ARBs, not a reason not to use beta-blockers.     

Role of Beta-Blocker Therapy in Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation

Heart failure is a serious disorder associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Approximately 15-30% patients with systolic heart failure are in atrial fibrillation and the proportion increases with severity of heart failure. Patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation have worse outcome than those in sinus rhythm. Beta-blockers, together with angiotensin-converting enzymes inhibitors, are the standard therapy in patients with chronic heart failure. Retrospective studies have suggested that despite the improvement in left ventricular systolic function after treatment with beta-blockers, the exercise capacity and symptoms in those heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation was not improved as much as those in sinus rhythm. Moreover, the use of bisoprolol in the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II, unlike those in sinus rhythm, failed to produce any survival benefit in patients with poor systolic function and atrial fibrillation. It seems that those patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation may have different response to beta-blocker therapy. Prospective trials to clarify the impact of beta-blocker therapy and the optimal therapeutic strategy in this high-risk group of patients are warranted.     

Treatment of heart failure with preserved systolic function

Heart failure is a major public health problem. Heart failure with preserved systolic function (HF-PSF) is a common form, which is difficult to diagnose. Results of recent studies show that HF-PSF has a poor prognosis, with an annual survival rate similar to that of heart failure with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Despite these findings, the therapeutic management of HF-PSF is not clearly defined. We will discuss in this review of the literature the current therapeutic management of HF-PSF, including the role of precipitating factors such as hypertension, myocardial ischaemia and supraventricular arrhythmias, and the main results of epidemiological registries and randomized controlled clinical trials in this disease. Only four large therapeutic trials have assessed the impact of different classes of drugs (digoxin, angiotensin II converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptors type I blockers and beta-blockers) on morbidity and mortality in HF-PSF. Results of these trials are disappointing. Apart from the beta-blockers, the other three classes of drugs did not show benefit on the outcome of the disease. Moreover, the results of the beta-blocker trial are controversial as a mixed population of heart failure with and without preserved systolic function was studied. Finally, the current therapeutic management of patients with HF-PSF is still based on our pathophysiological knowledge: education, low salt diet, diuretics, slowing heart rate and controlling triggering factors. Other large randomized controlled multicenter trials, which may help us in the understanding of HF-PSP and its therapeutic management, are ongoing.