Context Care of patients with heart failure has been revolutionized throughout
the past decade. A paradigm shift in the strategy for treating heart failure
caused by systolic dysfunction is in progress. Despite the initial perception
about β-blockers' safety, they are now the most extensively studied class
of agents in the treatment of heart failure and have emerged as an important
intervention to improve the clinical outcomes of heart failure patients.
Objective To provide scientific rationale for the use of β-blockers for patients
with heart failure.
Data Sources All English-language articles of large, randomized controlled clinical
trials assessing the mortality benefits of β-blockers in patients with
heart failure were identified to provide the scientific rationale for the
use of β-blockers in heart failure. Basic science studies were reviewed
to provide an overview of the potential physiologic role of β-blockers
in heart failure. Finally, clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients
with heart failure were assessed to determine current recommendations for
the use of these agents.
Study Selection and Data Extraction Randomized controlled clinical trials of β-blockers that included
more than 300 subjects and assessed mortality as a primary end point.
Data Synthesis Of the 4 β-blockers tested in large randomized controlled clinical
trials of patients with heart failure, 3 are available in the United States,
bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol; 2 of these, carvedilol and metoprolol,
have Food and Drug Administration indications for the treatment of heart failure.
Compared with placebo treatment, β-blocker use is associated with a consistent
30% reduction in mortality and a 40% reduction in hospitalizations in patients
with class II and III heart failure.
Conclusions Tested in more than 10 000 patients, β-blockers reduce morbidity
and mortality in class II through IV heart failure. Along with angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors, digoxin, and diuretics, β-blockers have strengthened
the armamentarium to improve clinical outcomes of heart failure patients.
The science supporting β-blockers must be translated into practice safely
and rationally if the agents are to achieve their full potential.
A medication once thought to be dangerous1-3
for patients with heart failure, β-blockers have been shown to reduce
morbidity and mortality4-9
and are strongly supported by consensus recommendations and clinical guidelines.10-12 Clinicians are now
challenged to translate this important new information into clinical practice.
For half a century, β-blockers have been an important therapy for
patients with cardiovascular disease. Originally developed as a drug to treat
angina and hypertension, β-blockers have also become essential therapies
for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and those with tachyarrhythmias.
Even before β-blockers were shown to benefit patients with heart failure,
the Nobel Committee declared James W. Black's development of propranolol as
the greatest breakthrough in pharmaceuticals to treat heart illness since
the discovery of digitalis 200 years earlier.13,14
Enthusiasm for the use of β-blockers as a treatment for heart failure
emerged slowly. Conventional wisdom held that heart failure was solely due
to a decline in systolic function and was an absolute contraindication for
the prescription of any medication with negative inotropic action. Initial
small studies demonstrating the significant negative inotropic effects and
poor clinical response to β-blockers15,16
only reinforced this view. Consequently, early trials of β-blockers in
hypertension or AMI excluded patients with heart failure. Until recently,
national guidelines,17-20
the US Food and Drug Administration, and package inserts stated that β-blockers
were contraindicated in patients with heart failure.
In 1973, Finn Waagstein et al,21 convinced
that the heart-rate–lowering properties of β-blockers could provide
benefit to patients with heart failure, administered practolol to a 59-year-old
woman with heart failure, with dramatic improvement in the patient's clinical
status.22 In another study,23
Waagstein and colleagues demonstrated that β-blockers were well tolerated
by patients with heart failure. Subsequent studies from his group demonstrated
the clinical benefits of β-blockers in patients with heart failure.24,25 These studies, however, did not influence
mainstream medical culture, and concerns about the potential adverse effects
of β-blockers for these patients remained.
Throughout the next 30 years, experts began to perceive that heart failure
was a complex disorder characterized not only by declines in systolic function,
but also by a maladaptive increase in adrenergic drive.26,27
Only after decades of laboratory science demonstrating biological plausibility,26-35
mechanistic studies showing direct cardiovascular effects,36-41
and large randomized clinical trials4-9
demonstrating mortality benefits did β-blockers become accepted as a
treatment for heart failure.
This article reviews the scientific rationale supporting the use of β-blockers
for patients with heart failure and presents current therapy recommendations10-12 based on guidelines
from professional organizations. Our goal is to provide information for clinicians
caring for patients with heart failure to accelerate the appropriate use of β-blockers
for their patients.
After the discovery of propranolol, laboratory science laid the groundwork
for β-blocker use for patients with heart failure28-35
as it came to be understood that the pathophysiology of heart failure was
related to activation of the adrenergic nervous system. Early in heart failure,
drops in cardiac output lead to decreased organ perfusion, a compensatory
increase in adrenergic drive, and the subsequent release of neurohormones
such as norepinephrine.35,42 In
turn, norepinephrine stimulates ventricular contraction and increases vascular
resistance, thereby increasing cardiac output and blood pressure. This increase
in the cardiac adrenergic drive, initially a compensatory mechanism for the
failing heart, is one of the earliest measurable responses in heart failure43,44 occurring while patients are still
asymptomatic.45,46
This chronic activation of the adrenergic nervous system leads to several
potentially deleterious effects on the heart.47-51
Sustained adrenergic activation and norepinephrine release raise cardiac output
and heart rate, which then increase myocardial oxygen demand, ischemia, and
oxidative stress. At the same time, peripheral vasoconstriction increases
both preload and afterload, causing additional stress on the failing ventricle.
This long-term mechanical stress in conjunction with cardiac fibrosis52-55 and
necrosis28-35
promoted by norepinephrine contributes to cardiac remodeling and a dilated,
less contractile cardiac chamber. Norepinephrine down-regulates the β1-adrenergic receptor and uncouples the β2-adrenergic
receptor,56-58
leaving the myocyte less responsive to adrenergic stimuli, and further decreases
contractile function. Thus, prolonged activation of the adrenergic system
may be maladaptive,46,59-62
causing progressive deterioration of myocardial function and portending a
poor prognosis.37,41,63
As the neurohormonal hypothesis emerged, so too did a new understanding
of the potential role of β-blockers in heart failure. Although acute
treatment with β-blockers decreases blood pressure and cardiac index,
long-term administration of β-blockers is associated with significant
increases in ejection fraction64-77
and cardiac index and a decrease in left ventricular (LV) end diastolic pressure.61,77-87 β-Blockers
reverse the deleterious changes associated with LV remodeling and decrease
myocardial mass and LV volume, leading to improved hemodynamics. Finally, β-blockers
may also mediate benefit via regulating heart rate and decreasing cardiac
arrhythmias.67 These direct cardiac effects
led to the hypothesis that β-blockers would provide substantial clinical
benefits in patients with heart failure.
β-Blockers have been evaluated in more than 10 000 patients
with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure and ejection fractions less than
40% in randomized clinical trials. Five meta-analyses88-92
have arrived at the same conclusions: the use of β-blockers was associated
with a consistent 30% reduction in mortality and a 40% reduction in hospitalizations
in patients with heart failure. In the most recent of these meta-analyses,92 it was estimated that 26 patients would need to be
treated to avoid 1 death; 25, to avoid 1 hospitalization. Despite differences
in patient selection, target doses, methodology, and clinical end points,
results were remarkably consistent across these trials. The evidence suggests
that virtually all patients with heart failure caused by LV systolic dysfunction
benefit from β-blockers.
Seven mortality trials with more than 300 subjects evaluated the impact
of the second- and third-generation β-blockers (metoprolol, bisoprolol,
bucindolol, or carvedilol) on patients with symptomatic LV systolic dysfunction
(Table 1). These trials included
the Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (MDC)93,94 study, the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized
Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF),6,9 the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol
Studies (CIBIS I and II),4,5 the Australia, New Zealand, and United
States Carvedilol Clinical Trial8 program,
the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival Trial (COPERNICUS),95 and the Beta-Blocker
Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST)96
(Table 2).
One of the earliest controlled trials of β-blockers in heart failure,
MDC,93,94 was designed to assess
the impact of metoprolol on the combined end point of death or progression
to heart transplantation. In this trial, 383 patients with mild to moderate
heart failure and an ejection fraction less than 40% were randomized to placebo
or metoprolol. Metoprolol initiated at a dose of 5 mg twice daily and titrated
to a high dose of 100 to 150 mg/d was associated with a 34% decrease in the
combined primary end point. Although the improvement was due entirely to a
reduction in the need for cardiac transplantation without a significant difference
in mortality (P = .12), this study was the first
larger-scale trial to add support to the role of β-blockers in heart
failure therapy. Despite its limitations and negative mortality results, the
MDC trial sparked renewed interest in β-blockers as a therapy for heart
failure.
In follow-up to the MDC trial, the MERIT-HF6,9
was designed to determine whether therapy with the long-acting metoprolol
CR/XL was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. Larger than
the MDC trial, this study randomized 3991 patients with stable New York Heart
Association class II through IV heart failure and already receiving standard
medical treatment (including angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors,
diuretics, and digitalis) to increasing doses of metoprolol CR/XL or placebo.
The MERIT-HF trial featured a 2-week placebo run-in period to assess clinical
stability. The starting dosage of metoprolol CR/XL was 12.5 or 25 mg/d and
was gradually increased every 2 weeks to the target dose of 200 mg/d. At the
conclusion of the study, 64% of the patients were receiving 200 mg of metoprolol
per day. Planned follow-up was 2 years, but the study was stopped early because
of a significant decrease in all-cause mortality in the metoprolol treatment
arm. Treatment with metoprolol was associated with a 34% decrease in all-cause
mortality, a 38% decrease in cardiovascular mortality, a 41% decrease in sudden
death, a 49% decrease in death caused by progressive heart failure, and a
35% reduction in hospitalizations caused by heart failure. Treatment of 27
patients with metoprolol for 1 year could prevent 1 death.
At approximately the same time, the CIBIS-I4
sought to determine whether bisoprolol therapy was associated with an improvement
in survival and functional status in patients with moderate heart failure
and already receiving diuretics and ACE inhibitors. Although patients treated
with bisoprolol had marked improvements in functional class and reduced readmissions,
the observed difference in mortality between groups did not reach statistical
significance (P = .22; relative risk [RR], 0.80;
95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.15). In general, CIBIS-I demonstrated
the safety of bisoprolol in patients with moderate heart failure and its efficacy
in improving functional class and decreasing hospitalizations.
The CIBIS-II,5 with greater statistical
power than its predecessor, CIBIS-I, was designed to determine whether bisoprolol
at optimal target doses of 10 mg/d would be associated with improved survival.
The trial was stopped early after treatment with bisoprolol was found to have
a significant mortality benefit: 156 (11.8%) vs 228 (17.3%) deaths with an
RR reduction of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P<.001)
noted in the β-blocker group. There were significantly fewer sudden deaths
among patients receiving bisoprolol than among those receiving placebo (48
[3.6%] vs 83 [6.3%] deaths), with an RR reduction of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.39-0.80; P = .001). In addition, all-cause hospital admission was
reduced in the treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.71-0.91]; P<.001). Treatment effects were independent of the severity
or cause of heart failure. Of note, CIBIS-II did not have a run-in period
and thus may be more representative of β-blocker use in clinical practice.
According to these findings, treating 23 patients with bisoprolol would prevent
1 death.
Carvedilol, a third-generation β-blocker with α1, β1, and β2 blocking properties as well as antioxidant
activity, was extensively tested in the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Program,
which consisted of different multicenter trials,8,81,97
each with a run-in period and including 1094 patients with chronic heart failure.
Within each of the trial protocols, patients with mild, moderate, or severe
heart failure and LV ejection fractions of 35% were randomized to carvedilol
(n = 696) or placebo (n = 398). Carvedilol therapy was associated with a significant
reduction in overall mortality rate (3.2% vs 7.8% in the placebo group). The
reduction in mortality was 65% (95% CI, 39%-80%; P<.001).
Carvedilol therapy was associated with a 27% reduction in hospitalizations
for cardiovascular causes (P = .04) and a 38% reduction
in the combined end point of hospitalization or death (P<.001).
In the COPERNICUS,95 the first study
to target New York Heart Association IIIB to IV patients with heart failure
despite optimal medical therapy, there was a significant 35% decrease in all-cause
mortality in patients treated with carvedilol. In order to address concerns
over the safety of these agents in patients with advanced disease, outcome
data were analyzed by high-risk subsets. Even in patients who had fluid retention,
used intravenous inotropes or vasodilators within 2 weeks, or had 3 heart
failure admissions within 1 year, carvedilol use was associated with a 50%
RR reduction in all-cause mortality (95% CI, 27%-90%). Carvedilol was well
tolerated at 12 months, with 13% of the carvedilol-treated patients and 16%
of the placebo-treated patients withdrawing from therapy. According to these
results, administering carvedilol to just 14 patients with severe heart failure
would save 1 life.
In contrast to the other recent large trials, the BEST96
failed to demonstrate that bucindolol improved overall survival in patients
with New York Heart Association class III to IV heart failure. The data and
safety monitoring board halted this study, which randomized 2708 patients.
Patients receiving bucindolol, a nonselective β-blocker with vasodilatory
properties, showed a significant decrease in cardiovascular mortality as well
as significant decreases in norepinephrine levels and significant increases
in LV function. Subgroup analysis suggested that black patients may have fared
worse with bucindolol. This result raised questions regarding efficacy of
bucindolol in patients with heart failure as well as concerns that β-blockers
may not be an effective therapy for black patients with advanced heart failure.
Heart failure patients with recent AMI have also not been extensively
studied. Patients with heart failure were generally excluded from post-AMI β-blocker
trials, and heart failure patients with recent AMI were excluded from heart
failure β-blocker trials. The CAPRICORN study98
was the first large mortality trial to specifically randomize patients with
LV dysfunction following AMI to assess whether carvedilol in addition to ACE
inhibition would improve all-cause mortality in an era of aggressive reperfusion
therapy. Patients with LV dysfunction (ejection fraction <40%) with or
without heart failure were randomized to carvedilol or placebo early after
an AMI. Patients receiving carvedilol had a lower rate of all-cause mortality
(12% vs 15%), with a hazard ratio of 0.77. The original primary end point
for this study was all-cause mortality. However, because of a lower-than-anticipated
overall mortality in the study sample, a new combined end point of all-cause
mortality or hospital admission for cardiovascular events was adopted. Although
there was no difference in the new primary end point (35% carvedilol vs 37%
placebo), all-cause mortality was lower in patients receiving carvedilol than
in those receiving placebo (12% vs 15%; P = .03).
Although nominally significant for the outcome of all-cause mortality, P = .03 does not meet the higher level of significance
(.005) established when the primary end point was changed from all-cause mortality
to a combined end point of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
In practical terms, however, the observed 23% reduction in mortality represents
a clinically important outcome.
With the emergence of strong new evidence demonstrating that β-blockers
decrease morbidity and mortality in a broad range of patients with heart failure,
guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart
Association,12 the European Society of Cardiology,11 and the Heart Failure Society of America10 all strongly support the use of β-blockers in
patients with heart failure. The recently published, revised heart failure
guidelines of the American College of Cardiology–American Heart Association12 and the European Society of Cardiology clinical practice
guidelines11 recommend use of β-blockers
in a broader range of heart failure patients, including those with asymptomatic
LV systolic dysfunction and those with severe symptomatic disease.
These guidelines emphasize that the majority of patients with heart
failure are candidates for β-blockers, with few exceptions. Currently,
only patients with absolute contraindications to these drugs or patients with
severe heart failure requiring intravenous inotropes or mechanical support
should not receive these agents. Not only are these agents beneficial in patients
with mild to moderate symptomatic heart failure caused by systolic dysfunction,
but also they improve survival in patients with severe symptomatic heart failure.
Developed nearly half a century ago by Sir James Black, β-blockers
have become the most extensively scrutinized treatment for heart failure.
Basic science, mechanistic studies, and large, randomized controlled clinical
trials support the value of β-blockers for patients with heart failure
caused by systolic dysfunction. Tested in more than 10 000 patients,
they reduce morbidity and mortality in class II through IV heart failure.
Along with ACE inhibitors, digoxin, and diuretics, β-blockers have strengthened
the armamentarium to improve clinical outcomes of heart failure patients.
The science supporting β-blockers must be translated into practice safely
and rationally if the agents are to achieve their full potential.
1.Levy JV. Catecholamine stores and the negative inotropic effect of beta-adrenergic
blocking drugs on the isolated rabbit heart.
Arch Int Physiol Biochim.1967;75:381-404.Google Scholar 2.Nayler WD, Chipperfield D, Lowe TE. The negative inotropic effect of adrenergic betareceptor blocking drugs
on human heart muscle.
Cardiovasc Res.1969;3:30-36.Google Scholar 3.Epstein S, Robinson BF, Kahler RL, Braunwald E. Effects of beta-adrenergic blockade on the cardiac response to maximal
and submaximal exercise in man.
J Clin Invest.1965;44:1745-1753.Google Scholar 4.CIBIS Investigators and Committees. A randomized trial of beta-blockade in heart failure: the Cardiac Insufficiency
Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS).
Circulation.1994;90:1765-1773.Google Scholar 5.CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II).
Lancet.1999;353:9-13.Google Scholar 6.The International Steering Committee, MERIT-HF. Rationale, design, and organization of the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized
Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF).
Am J Cardiol.1997;80:54J-58J.Google Scholar 7.Cohn JN, Fowler MB, Bristow MR.
et al. Safety and efficacy of carvedilol in severe heart failure: the US Carvedilol
Heart Failure Study Group.
J Card Fail.1997;3:173-179.Google Scholar 8.Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN.
et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with
chronic heart failure: US Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group.
N Engl J Med.1996;334:1349-1355.Google Scholar 9.Goldstein S, Hjalmarson A. The mortality effect of metoprolol CR/XL in patients with heart failure:
results of the MERIT-HF Trial.
Clin Cardiol.1999;22(suppl 5):V30-V35.Google Scholar 10.Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA). HFSA guidelines for management of patients with heart failure caused
by left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
J Card Fail.1999;5:357-382.Google Scholar 11.Remme WJ, Swedberg K. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure.
Eur Heart J.2001;22:1527-1560.Google Scholar 12.Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH.
et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart
failure in the adult: executive summary and recommendations.
J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;38: 2101-2113.Google Scholar 14.Meijler FL. Sir James Black, FRS, FRCP, FACC.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1989;13:769-770.Google Scholar 15.Currie PJ, Kelly MJ, McKenzie A.
et al. Oral beta-adrenergic blockade with metoprolol in chronic severe dilated
cardiomyopathy.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1984;3:203-209.Google Scholar 16.Ikram H, Fitzpatrick D. Double-blind trial of chronic oral beta blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy.
Lancet.1981;2:490-493.Google Scholar 17.Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Heart failure: management of patients with left-ventricular systolic
dysfunction.
Clin Pract Guidel Quick Ref Guide Clin.1994;(11):1-25.Google Scholar 18. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of heart failure: report
of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force
on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure).
Circulation.1995;92:2764-2784.Google Scholar 19.Baker DW, Konstam MA, Bottorff M, Pitt B. Management of heart failure.
JAMA.1994;272:1361-1366.Google Scholar 20.Brooks NH. Five points from the AHCPR guideline on heart failure.
Am Fam Physician.1994;50:531-532.Google Scholar 21.Waagstein F, Hjalmarson AC, Wasir HS. Apex cardiogram and systolic time intervals in acute myocardial infarction
and effects of practolol.
Br Heart J.1974;36:1109-1121.Google Scholar 22.Waagstein F, Hjalmarson A, Varnauskas E, Wallentin I. Effect of chronic beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy.
Br Heart J.1975;37:1022-1036.Google Scholar 23.Waagstein F, Hjalmarson AC. Double-blind study of the effect of cardioselective beta-blockade on
chest pain in acute myocardial infarction.
Acta Med Scand Suppl.1976;587:201-208.Google Scholar 24.Waagstein F, Hjalmarson AC. Effect of cardioselective beta-blockade on heart function and chest
pain in acute myocardial infarction.
Acta Med Scand Suppl.1976;587:193-200.Google Scholar 25.Waagstein F, Reiz S, Ariniego R, Hjalmarson A. Clinical results with prenalterol in patients with heart failure.
Am Heart J.1981;102:548-554.Google Scholar 26.Katz AM. Future perspectives in basic science understanding of congestive heart
failure.
Am J Cardiol.1990;66:468-471.Google Scholar 27.Katz AM. Heart failure in 2001: a prophecy.
Am J Cardiol.1992;70:126C-131C.Google Scholar 28.Kappagoda CT, Linden RJ, Scott EM, Snow HM. Proceedings: the efferent pathway of the reflex increase in heart rate
produced by stimulation of left arterial receptors.
J Physiol (Lond).1974;242:79P-80P.Google Scholar 29.Pool PE, Covell JW, Levitt M, Gibb J, Braunwald E. Reduction of cardiac tyrosine hydroxylase activity in experimental
congestive heart failure.
Circ Res.1967;20:349-353.Google Scholar 30.Braunwald E. Alterations in the activity of the adrenergic nervous system in heart
failure.
UCLA Forum Med Sci.1970;10:289-294.Google Scholar 31.Pool PE, Braunwald E. Fundamental mechanisms in congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1968;22:7-15.Google Scholar 32.Kramer RS, Mason DT, Braunwald E. Augmented sympathetic neurotransmitter activity in the peripheral vascular
bed of patients with congestive heart failure and cardiac norepinephrine depletion.
Circulation.1968;38:629-634.Google Scholar 33.Spann Jr JF, Chidsey CA, Pool PE, Braunwald E. Mechanism of norepinephrine depletion in experimental heart failure
produced by aortic constriction in the guinea pig.
Circ Res.1965;17:312-321.Google Scholar 34.Braunwald E, Chidsey CA. The adrenergic nervous system in the control of the normal and failing
heart.
Proc R Soc Med.1965;58:1063-1066.Google Scholar 35.Chidsey CA, Sonnenblick EH, Morrow AG, Braunwald E. Norepinephrine stores and contractile force of papillary muscle from
the failing human heart.
Circulation.1966;33:43-51.Google Scholar 36.Cohn JN, Rector TS. Prognosis of congestive heart failure and predictors of mortality.
Am J Cardiol.1988;62:25A-30A.Google Scholar 37.Cohn JN, Levine TB, Olivari MT.
et al. Plasma norepinephrine as a guide to prognosis in patients with chronic
congestive heart failure.
N Engl J Med.1984;311:819-823.Google Scholar 38.Cohn JN. Plasma norepinephrine and mortality.
Clin Cardiol.1995;18:I9-I12.Google Scholar 39.Francis GS, Goldsmith SR, Ziesche SM, Cohn JN. Response of plasma norepinephrine and epinephrine to dynamic exercise
in patients with congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1982;49:1152-1156.Google Scholar 40.Francis GS, Cohn JN. The autonomic nervous system in congestive heart failure.
Annu Rev Med.1986;37:235-247.Google Scholar 41.Francis GS, Cohn JN, Johnson G, Rector TS, Goldman S, Simon A. Plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity, and congestive heart
failure.
Circulation.1993;87:VI40-VI48.Google Scholar 42.Chidsey CA, Braunwald E. Sympathetic activity and neurotransmitter depletion in congestive heart
failure.
Pharmacol Rev.1966;18:685-700.Google Scholar 43.Minami M, Yasuda H, Yamazaki N.
et al. Plasma norepinephrine concentration and plasma dopamine-beta-hydroxylase
activity in patients with congestive heart failure.
Circulation.1983;67:1324-1329.Google Scholar 44.Pierpont GL, Francis GS, DeMaster EG.
et al. Heterogeneous myocardial catecholamine concentrations in patients with
congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1987;60:316-321.Google Scholar 45.Rundqvist B, Elam M, Bergmann-Sverrisdottir Y, Eisenhofer G, Friberg P. Increased cardiac adrenergic drive precedes generalized sympathetic
activation in human heart failure.
Circulation.1997;95:169-175.Google Scholar 46.Packer M. Evolution of the neurohormonal hypothesis to explain the progression
of chronic heart failure.
Eur Heart J.1995;16(suppl F):4-6.Google Scholar 47.Francis GS, Benedict C, Johnstone DE.
et al. Comparison of neuroendocrine activation in patients with left ventricular
dysfunction with and without congestive heart failure.
Circulation.1990;82:1724-1729.Google Scholar 48.Levine TB, Francis GS, Goldsmith SR, Simon AB, Cohn JN. Activity of the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin system
assessed by plasma hormone levels and their relation to hemodynamic abnormalities
in congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1982;49:1659-1666.Google Scholar 49.Viquerat CE, Kereiakes D, Morris DL.
et al. Alterations in left ventricular function, coronary hemodynamics and
myocardial catecholamine balance with MDL 17043, a new inotropic vasodilator
agent, in patients with severe heart failure.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1985;5:326-332.Google Scholar 50.Viquerat CE, Daly P, Swedberg K.
et al. Endogenous catecholamine levels in chronic heart failure.
Am J Med.1985;78:455-460.Google Scholar 51.Swedberg K, Viquerat CE, Rouleau JL.
et al. Comparison of myocardial catecholamine balance in chronic congestive
heart failure and in angina pectoris without failure.
Am J Cardiol.1984;54:783-786.Google Scholar 52.Mann DL, Cooper IV G. Neurohumoral activation in congestive heart failure: a double-edged
sword?
Clin Cardiol.1989;12:485-490.Google Scholar 53.Mann DL. Mechanisms and models in heart failure.
Circulation.1999;100:999-1008.Google Scholar 54.Mann DL. Basic mechanisms of disease progression in the failing heart: the role
of excessive adrenergic drive.
Prog Cardiovasc Dis.1998;41:1-8.Google Scholar 55.Hasegawa K, Iwai-Kanai E, Sasayama S. Neurohormonal regulation of myocardial cell apoptosis during the development
of heart failure.
J Cell Physiol.2001;186:11-18.Google Scholar 56.Bristow MR. Mechanism of action of beta-blocking agents in heart failure.
Am J Cardiol.1997;80:26L-40L.Google Scholar 57.Bristow MR, Roden RL, Lowes BD, Gilbert EM, Eichhorn EJ. The role of third-generation beta-blocking agents in chronic heart
failure.
Clin Cardiol.1998;21:I3-I13.Google Scholar 58.Feldman AM, Bristow MR. The beta-adrenergic pathway in the failing human heart: implications
for inotropic therapy.
Cardiology.1990;77(suppl 1):1-32.Google Scholar 59.Bristow MR. Mechanistic and clinical rationales for using beta-blockers in heart
failure.
J Card Fail.2000;6:8-14.Google Scholar 60.Cohn JN. Is neurohormonal activation deleterious to the long-term outcome of
patients with congestive heart failure? III: antagonist's viewpoint.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1988;12:554-558.Google Scholar 61.Eichhorn EJ. The paradox of beta-adrenergic blockade for the management of congestive
heart failure.
Am J Med.1992;92:527-538.Google Scholar 62.Ferrari R, Ceconi C, Curello S, Visioli O. The neuroendocrine and sympathetic nervous system in congestive heart
failure.
Eur Heart J.1998;19(suppl F):F45-F51.Google Scholar 63.Rector TS, Olivari MT, Levine TB, Francis GS, Cohn JN. Predicting survival for an individual with congestive heart failure
using the plasma norepinephrine concentration.
Am Heart J.1987;114:148-152.Google Scholar 64.Anthonio RL, Brouwer J, Lechat P.
et al. Different effects of bisoprolol on heart rate in patients with ischemic
or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (a 24-hour Holter substudy of the Cardiac
Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study [CIBIS]).
Am J Cardiol.1999;83:1286-1289, A10.Google Scholar 65.Cohn JN, Johnson GR, Shabetai R.
et al. Ejection fraction, peak exercise oxygen consumption, cardiothoracic
ratio, ventricular arrhythmias, and plasma norepinephrine as determinants
of prognosis in heart failure.
Circulation.1993;87:VI5-V16.Google Scholar 66.Frankenberger O, Steinberg JS. Beta-blockers and amiodarone for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac
death.
Curr Cardiol Rep.1999;1:274-281.Google Scholar 67.Lechat P, Hulot J-S, Escolano S.
et al. Heart rate and cardiac rhythm relationships with bisoprolol benefit
in chronic heart failure in CIBIS II Trial.
Circulation.2001;103:1428-1433.Google Scholar 68.Barone FC, Campbell Jr WG, Nelson AH, Feuerstein GZ. Carvedilol prevents severe hypertensive cardiomyopathy and remodeling.
J Hypertens.1998;16:871-884.Google Scholar 69.Cohn JN. Critical review of heart failure.
Clin Cardiol.1995;18:IV4-IV12.Google Scholar 70.Jaffe R, Flugelman MY, Halon DA, Lewis BS. Ventricular remodeling: from bedside to molecule.
Adv Exp Med Biol.1997;430:257-266.Google Scholar 71.Patten RD, Udelson JE, Konstam MA. Ventricular remodeling and its prevention in the treatment of heart
failure.
Curr Opin Cardiol.1998;13:162-167.Google Scholar 72.Basu S, Senior R, Raval U, van der Does R, Bruckner T, Lahiri A. Beneficial effects of intravenous and oral carvedilol treatment in
acute myocardial infarction.
Circulation.1997;96:183-191.Google Scholar 73.Dernellis JM, Vyssoulis GP, Zacharoulis AA, Toutouzas PK. Acute changes of left atrial distensibility in congestive heart failure.
Clin Cardiol.1998;21:28-32.Google Scholar 74.Doughty RN, Sharpe N. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents in the treatment of congestive heart
failure.
Annu Rev Med.1997;48:103-114.Google Scholar 75.Feldman RL, Prida XE, Hill JA. Systemic and coronary hemodynamic effects of combined oral alpha- and
beta-adrenergic blockade (labetalol) in normotensive patients with stable
angina pectoris and positive exercise stress tests.
Clin Cardiol.1988;11:383-388.Google Scholar 76.Feldman RL, Prida XE, Lambert CR, Hill JA. Systemic and coronary hemodynamics of labetalol in normotensive patients
with ischemic heart disease.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther.1988;2:355-361.Google Scholar 77.Gilbert EM, Abraham WT, Olsen S.
et al. Comparative hemodynamic, left ventricular functional, and antiadrenergic
effects of chronic treatment with metoprolol versus carvedilol in the failing
heart.
Circulation.1996;94:2817-2825.Google Scholar 78.Bristow MR, O'Connell JB, Gilbert EM.
et al. Dose-response of chronic beta-blocker treatment in heart failure from
either idiopathic dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Circulation.1994;89:1632-1642.Google Scholar 79.Bristow MR, Gilbert EM, Abraham WT.
et al. Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in left ventricular function
and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure.
Circulation.1996;94:2807-2816.Google Scholar 80.Carson P, Johnson G, Fletcher R, Cohn J. Mild systolic dysfunction in heart failure (left ventricular ejection
fraction >35%).
J Am Coll Cardiol.1996;27:642-649.Google Scholar 81.Colucci WS, Packer M, Bristow MR.
et al. Carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mild symptoms
of heart failure: US Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group.
Circulation.1996;94:2800-2806.Google Scholar 82.DiBona GF, Sawin LL. Effect of metoprolol administration on renal sodium handling in experimental
congestive heart failure.
Circulation.1999;100:82-86.Google Scholar 83.Hash II TW, Prisant LM. Beta-blocker use in systolic heart failure and dilated cardiomyopathy.
J Clin Pharmacol.1997;37:7-19.Google Scholar 84.Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B.
et al. Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations,
and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized
Intervention Trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF): MERIT-HF Study
Group.
JAMA.2000;283:1295-1302.Google Scholar 85.McDonald KM, Francis GS, Carlyle PF.
et al. Hemodynamic, left ventricular structural and hormonal changes after
discrete myocardial damage in the dog.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1992;19:460-467.Google Scholar 86.Metra M, Nardi M, Giubbini R, Dei CL. Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and
exercise hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions
in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1994;24:1678-1687.Google Scholar 87.Eichhorn EJ. Do beta-blockers have a role in patients with congestive heart failure?
Cardiol Clin.1994;12:133-142.Google Scholar 88.Avezum A, Tsuyuki RT, Pogue J, Yusuf S. Beta-blocker therapy for congestive heart failure.
Can J Cardiol.1998;14:1045-1053.Google Scholar 89.Lechat P, Packer M, Chalon S, Cucherat M, Arab T, Boissel JP. Clinical effects of beta-adrenergic blockade in chronic heart failure.
Circulation.1998;98:1184-1191.Google Scholar 90.Doughty R, Rodgers A, Sharpe N, MacMahon S. Effects of beta-blocker therapy on mortality in patients with heart
failure.
Eur Heart J.1997;18:560-565.Google Scholar 91.Heidenreich PA, Lee TT, Massie BM. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure.
J Am Coll Cardiol.1997;30:27-34.Google Scholar 92.Brophy JM, Joseph L, Rouleau JL. Beta-blockers in congestive heart failure: a Bayesian meta-analysis.
Ann Intern Med.2001;134:550-560.Google Scholar 93.Waagstein F, Bristow MR, Swedberg K.
et al. Beneficial effects of metoprolol in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy:
Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (MDC) Trial Study Group.
Lancet.1993;342:1441-1446.Google Scholar 94.Wiklund I, Waagstein F, Swedberg K, Hjalmarsson A. Quality of life on treatment with metoprolol in dilated cardiomyopathy:
results from the MDC trial: Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy trial.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther.1996;10:361-368.Google Scholar 95.Packer M, Coats AJS, Fowler MB.
et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure.
N Engl J Med.2001;344:1651-1658.Google Scholar 96.BEST Investigators. A trial of the beta blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic
heart failure.
N Engl J Med.2001;344:1659-1667.Google Scholar 97.Bristow MR, Gilbert EM, Abraham WT.
et al. Effect of carvedilol on LV function and mortality in diabetic versus
non-diabetic patients with ischemic or non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Circulation.1996;94:I-644.Google Scholar 98.Dargie HJ. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients
with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomized trial.
Lancet.2001;357:1385-1390.Google Scholar