You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 160 No. 9, May 8, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Review Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (15)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Congestive Heart Failure/ Cardiomyopathy
 •Alert me on articles by topic

{beta}-Blockers

The New Standard of Therapy for Mild Heart Failure

William T. Abraham, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1237-1247.

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.


The University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.


RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(9):1379-1380.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Impact of Linezolid on Economic Outcomes and Determinants of Cost in a Clinical Trial Evaluating Patients with MRSA Complicated Skin and Soft-Tissue Infections
McKinnon et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2006;40:1017-1023.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Adverse Effects of {beta}-Blocker Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure: A Quantitative Overview of Randomized Trials
Ko et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1389-1394.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Treatment of chronic heart failure with {beta} adrenergic blockade beyond controlled clinical trials: the BRING-UP experience
Maggioni et al.
Heart 2003;89:299-305.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Glycemic Control and Heart Failure Among Adult Patients With Diabetes
Iribarren et al.
Circulation 2001;103:2668-2673.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Intercurrent drug therapy and perioperative cardiovascular mortality in elective and urgent/emergency surgical patients{{dagger}}
Sear et al.
Br J Anaesth 2001;86:506-512.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Impact of a Guideline-Based Disease Management Team on Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Congestive Heart Failure
Costantini et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:177-182.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.