Skip Navigation

European Journal of Heart Failure 2005 7(3):317-321; doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2005.01.013
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society of Cardiology

Current guidelines in the management of chronic heart failure: Practical issues in their application to the community population

Ken McDonald*

Heart Failure Unit, St Vincent's University Hospital Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland

* Tel.: +353 1 2304629; fax: +353 1 2304639. E-mail address: kenneth.mcdonald{at}ucd.ie

Key Words: Heart failure • Guidelines • Management

Received May 18, 2004; Revised December 8, 2004; Revised January 13, 2005;
   1. Introduction
Top
 1. Introduction
2. End-points
 3. Cost-effectiveness
 4. Summary
 References
 
Over the last several years there have been significant advances in the management of chronic heart failure, encompassing developments in pharmacotherapy and device-based approaches to this problem. Clinical trials have demonstrated continued improvement in prognosis in this patient population as measured by reduced mortality and declining rates of hospitalisation [1–3]. However, the anticipated improvement in outlook has not materialised in the routine community heart failure population, in part reflecting the less than optimal translation of clinical trial results [4]. To help address this problem, International Societies have published guidelines to outline the appropriate application of recent proven therapies [5,6]. Guideline committees assess available data, distil the information and provide consensus statements on how best to apply the knowledge gained from clinical trials and other relevant sources. However, despite the strong scientific basis underlining these guidelines, application of proven and recommended therapy remains a problem. Aside from simple failure to be aware of these guidelines, several other reasons may explain their lack of application. These reasons reflect the merging of the clinical trial data and guideline suggestions, and the physician's opinion on how they apply to the treatment of a specific patient. This underlines the fact that guidelines represent advice, but not a mandate on how to treat patients with heart failure. This article will not include a didactic review of the guidelines but will discuss some general reasons why practice may deviate from guidelines.

1.1. Clinical trial population
Guidelines are based on results obtained from "clinical trial populations" which differ in many important aspects from the community patient with heart failure. In general the latter patient is often a decade older, has more extensive co-morbidities, especially renal disease, is taking more medication, both cardiac and non-cardiac, all of which can significantly alter response to therapy. In short, the community patient is more complex. In particular, these issues can significantly alter drug metabolism, heightening response to lower doses, increasing the risk of drug–drug interactions and potentially exposing the patient to drug-related complications producing significant morbidity [7,8]. These issues undoubtedly contribute to the decision on whether to apply guideline suggestions in a particular circumstance.

Furthermore, co-morbidities can influence management decisions in other ways. Frequent visits for gradual up-titration of medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and beta blockers (BB) places a significant burden on elderly patients with concomitant illnesses which may limit mobility to and from clinics. This labour-intensive approach may also stretch resources. Whereas there are no data to directly implicate these factors in the proven under-utilisation of therapies such as BB, it is possible that they may influence prescription practices favouring lower doses. In this regard it is of interest that recent data suggests home titration of beta blockers can be safely performed, an approach which may facilitate more widespread uptake of this important therapy [9]. A similar approach to ACEI therapy may be equally practical, encouraging prescription of higher doses and the anticipated benefits of that practice [10].

1.2. Trial entry criteria
Aside from differences already outlined between the clinical trial and community heart failure populations, other issues related to trial design may influence interpretation of the results and the guidelines that emanate from trials. Entry criteria for studies are routinely very restrictive leading to a high ratio of screened: enrolled patients. This raises the issue of whether therapy deemed effective in such circumstances will be similarly effective when given to patients with heart failure who would have been excluded from those clinical trials. Furthermore, on occasion, trial entry criteria in terms of background therapy may not reflect modern day practice by the time a study is completed. For example, in RALES, entry criteria did not prespecify the need for BB therapy. Consequently, only ~10% in each group were on these agents in combination with ACEI therapy [11]. As a result of the positive result of this trial, guidelines now suggest that we add spironolactone to background therapy of ACEI and BB in certain clinical circumstances. Whereas there is sound theoretical support for this advice, a careful review of the evidence would indicate that the data do not robustly defend this position. Practitioners strictly adhering to the practice of evidence-based medicine may therefore not feel justified in prescribing spironolactone in the absence of more convincing data. The recent publication by Juurlink et al may support this stance, reporting an increased incidence of spironolactone-related side-effects in patients with heart failure since the publication of the RALES data [12]. The explanation for this is unclear, but it is of interest that one of the major differences noted in this report in concomitant drug therapies pre and post RALES was the increased use of BB [13]. Beta blockers inhibit renin release which may reduce aldosterone production. While the recently published EPHESUS report provides further evidence for the use of aldosterone inhibitors in patients with heart failure, this study focused on a post-infarct heart failure population and therefore did not study the same group as the RALES program [14]. Consequently, the argument could be made that the role of aldosterone antagonists in established Class III heart failure with reduced systolic function may require more investigation.

Entry criteria may also influence the clinical interpretation of the MADIT II trial [15]. Subsequent to this trial recommendations have been made to place a defibrillator in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy with a LVEF less than 30% who are at least 3 months remote from an infarct. However, analysis of MADIT-II demonstrates that entry criteria were very broad and did not include any specific electrophysiological index of susceptibility to arrhythmia. Including such a broad population will likely have resulted in implanting devices into many who did not require intervention. This supposition is supported by the observation that the event curves did not separate until many months after randomisation. Therefore, some practitioners may still believe that the jury is still out regarding such a widespread application of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and await further clarification of optimal use of this valuable intervention. In this regard the recent paper by Bloomfield et al. on the potential role of microvolt T-wave alternans may allow for more specific direction of this intervention [16].

1.3. Layered therapy in heart failure
Heart failure clinical trials are characterised by a design that dictates that investigational drugs and devices should be assessed in the setting of standard optimal therapy. This approach has been used ever since the demonstration of benefit of ACE inhibition in this syndrome. As a result investigational agents had to prove their worth in circumstances where benefit had already been obtained by ACEI. In this setting, many trials have demonstrated the benefit of beta blockers, altering background therapy in subsequent heart failure studies to the combination of ACEI and BB. This has made it even more difficult for newer agents to demonstrate benefit. Moreover, this trial design propagates polypharmacy and increases the possibility of drug interaction and also assumes that newer agents would not prove to be superior as front-line agents compared with either ACEI or BB. The increasing number of "drug trial failures" of late may reflect this somewhat cumbersome approach, and worryingly may consign potentially effective therapies with sound theoretical basis for benefit, to the outbox of ineffective therapies. Examples of this problem include the recent trials with endothelin antagonists and the vasopeptidase inhibitor, both groups failing to show benefit in the setting of mandated background therapy [17,18].

Guidelines reflect this layered approach to therapy. Accordingly, for example, it is suggested all patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction with or without heart failure should be initially treated with an ACEI before consideration of BB, and that the ACEI be titrated to clinical trial dose. This guideline may not sit easily with practitioners all of the time. For example, initiating and titrating an ACE inhibitor before prescribing a BB may make it impossible in some circumstances to subsequently prescribe a beta blocker as a result of hypotension. In some clinical settings a practitioner may feel that a beta blocker should be considered at the outset, going against guideline recommendations. Indeed, one could develop a hypothesis that beta blockade may be as effective a first choice agent, noting that these agents have an excellent record in the post-infarct setting with reduced left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Unfortunately, this hypothesis has not been adequately challenged. While the CARMEN study may be interpreted as supporting first-line therapy with beta blockade it should be remembered that the more impressive regression of remodelling by monotherapy with BB compared with ACEI therapy may be explained by the fact that many of the patients received ACEI up until randomisation [19]. The ongoing CIBIS-III trial will provide further insight into this issue by directly comparing ACEI monotherapy with beta blocker monotherapy.

Furthermore, the spate of negative trials suggests that we should be looking for an alternative approach to assessing new therapies. Already, we have had some head-to-head trials, comparing monotherapy with ACEI with Angiotensin Receptor Blockade [20] and also comparing beta blocker therapy with ACEI therapy and their combination in CARMEN [19], a trial with a remodelling end-point. While small in number, these trials have at least broken the mould and will continue to provide some important insight into the relative merits of various therapies.

However, an even more desirable change to pharmacotherapeutics in this syndrome would be to investigate individualisation of therapy. It is somewhat naïve to believe that the same regimen outlined by guidelines would be suitable for all patients. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that choice and dose of agent may vary depending on many factors including aetiology, age, gender, renal function, neuroendocrine profile, etc. Furthermore, the increasing research interest in genetic influences on metabolism and effect of pharmaceutical agents may also define what is an appropriate "cocktail" in a specific individual [21–23]. It is also possible that such an analysis may alter the "first choice cocktail" for the same patient over time. As outlined, this approach may seem overly complex and theoretical. Nonetheless, some approach to individualisation is needed. At present, there have been preliminary attempts at this, using B-natriuretic peptide (BNP) as a biochemical marker of response to therapy [24]. If proven to be of benefit one could anticipate a situation where normalisation of BNP occurs with ACE inhibitor or BB alone, obviating the need for add-on therapy. At present large-scale clinical trials are further addressing these issues.

1.4. Dose-response
The majority of heart failure trials have assessed just one dose of the investigational drug. It is understandable that the study design will not risk under-dosing and will opt for a large dose of the investigational agent titrated upwards in the early weeks of the each patient's involvement. If the trial is positive we are left with the unanswered question of whether a smaller dose would be as effective, which if the case would possibly reduce exposure to dose-related side-effects. As a result, guidelines advocate titration to target doses, reflecting doses proven to be effective in clinical trials. Data are available suggesting that higher doses of ACEI may be more effective in reducing hospitalisation, not improving outlook [10]. Retrospective analysis of data from some beta blocker trials suggests that dose may not be that relevant. Bisoprolol dose did not appear to influence outcome in CIBIS-II [25]. Likewise, metoprolol dose in MERIT-HF did not affect outcome [26] and while data from the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Program did indicate an impact of dose on ventricular function, it should be noted that this information comes from a relatively small group of patients [27]. Achieving a BB effect as measured by heart rate and blood pressure may be more meaningful than dose achieved.

1.5. Beyond combination ACEI and BB therapy: what to use?
As mentioned above, the trial design in heart failure, while productive in many respects, has not provided any insight into how to individualise therapy. This issue is coming to the forefront as we realise that there is a limit to the number of agents that patients with heart failure can tolerate. Without information on how to individualise therapy we are presently left with no clear knowledge as what should be added to the combination of ACEI and BB to reduce morbidity in those with persistent symptoms but no overt congestion. The present data and guidelines cannot be precise in this regard as there are no trials assessing the relative merits of spironolactone, angiotensin receptor blockers or other therapies such as the combination of nitrates and hydralazine. As mentioned RALES does not help us accurately place spironolactone in modern day therapy of combination ACEI and BB. We now have data from the CHARM study demonstrating morbidity benefit from the addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker [28]. Less conclusive data on this issue come from Val-HeFT where retrospective analysis of those on background ACEI and BB suggested potential harm from "triple therapy", though it must be stressed that that this was a post hoc analysis and therefore of questionable significance [29]. Nonetheless, it does raise the issue that multiple vasoactive therapies may have drawbacks in certain circumstances. Our own experience in monitoring 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings in patients on escalating numbers of vasodilator agents does highlight a concerning degree of systemic hypotension which could be of potential harm, especially where coronary perfusion is important [30] (Fig. 1). Therefore, there may be some doubt about how and when to apply a third-line agent and which agent to chose. While the few data available indicate potential for further symptomatic improvement, and possibly improvement in prognosis in African-Americans with the addition of hydralazine and nitrates, the information to hand at present does not allow for the development of precise guidelines [31]. Furthermore, it is not clear whether cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with proven dyssynchrony is a better approach than a third-line pharmaceutical agent. This decision on additional strategies underlines the importance at looking critically at individualisation of therapy.


Figure 1
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 Frequency of daytime and nighttime hypotension defined as diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 60 mm Hg (a) and less than 50 mm Hg (b) in a group of 25 patients titrated on dual neurohumoral blockade therapy.

 

   2. End-points
Top
 1. Introduction
 2. End-points
3. Cost-effectiveness
 4. Summary
 References
 
One of the main purposes for clinical trials is to prove benefit of agents using certain established parameters. Consequently the primary end-points in heart failure studies are mortality and heart failure related morbidity, the latter usually measured by hospitalisation. These end-points are also generally accepted in clinical practice as being the most meaningful. However, in certain circumstances, these end-points may not be that important. For example prognosis is not a major concern in certain subsets of the heart failure population such as the very elderly, those with refractory symptoms from heart failure for whom transplantation or device implantation is not an option, or in individuals with terminal malignancy. Indeed, many such patients would often accept heart failure therapy which would sacrifice duration of life-span for adequate symptom relief [32]. Unfortunately, while agents with such a profile have been defined, their development has been stopped primarily as a result of commercial concerns. A potential niche role for their use is not alluded to in guidelines, often leaving practitioners with fewer options to treat this small percentage of heart failure patients who need terminal care.


   3. Cost-effectiveness
Top
 1. Introduction
 2. End-points
 3. Cost-effectiveness
4. Summary
 References
 
The major cost associated with heart failure care is hospitalisation [33]. Consequently reduction in hospital admission for heart failure remains a critical assessment of any new therapy. Indeed, this end-point could influence choice of agent. However, the relative efficacy of various interventions in this regard has not been compared, predominantly because every new therapy is assessed in the context of additional effectiveness it may provide to standard background therapy. Therefore, it is difficult to comment on relative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. In terms of cost savings it is likely that the structure of care will be of greater importance than the actual agents chosen, as evidenced by the significant reduction in hospital readmission achieved with multidisciplinary care [34].


   4. Summary
Top
 1. Introduction
 2. End-points
 3. Cost-effectiveness
 4. Summary
References
 
Pharmacotherapy and device-based therapy is becoming increasingly complex, producing continued incremental benefit in clinical trial populations. Translating these benefits into the routine community heart failure population has proven difficult. Development of guidelines has helped address this discrepancy but reasons as outlined above, other than lack of awareness of benefit, can lead physicians to deviate from suggested protocols in an attempt to apply the outcome of clinical trials in the most suitable manner to the individual patient.


   References
Top
 1. Introduction
 2. End-points
 3. Cost-effectiveness
 4. Summary
 References
 

  1. CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees. The cardiac insufficiency bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS II): a randomised trial. Lancet (1999) 353:9–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Packer M., et alfor the Carvedilol Prospective Randomised Cumulative Survival Study Group. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. (2001) 344:1651–16518.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Moss A., Zareba W., Hall W., et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. (2002) 346:877–883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Philbin E.F., Andreou C., Rocco T.A., Lynch L.J., Baker S.L. Patterns of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor use in congestive heart failure in two community hospitals. Am. J. Cardiol. (1996) 77:832–838.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure. European Society of Cardiology: guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart Failure. Eur. Heart J. (2001) 22:1527–1560.[Free Full Text]
  6. ACC/AHA. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: executive summary. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (2001) 38:2101–2113.[Free Full Text]
  7. King D. Diagnosis and management of heart failure in the elderly. Postgrad. Med. J. (1996) 72:577–580.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Ledwidge M., Travers B., Ryder M., Ryan E., McDonald K.M. Specialist care of heart failure improvers appropriate pharmacotherapy at the expense of greater polypharmacy and drug-interactions. Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2004) 6:235–243.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Wald D.S., More R.S., Martin M., Hughes L., Reid C.J. Can beta blockers be safely initiated at home in patients with heart failure? QJM (2002) 95:55–56.[Free Full Text]
  10. Packer M., Poole-Wilson P.A., Armstrong P.W., et al. Comparative effects of low and high doses of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure. ATLAS Study Group. Circulation (1999) 100:2312–2318.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Pitt B., Zannad F., Remme W.J., et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomised aldactone evaluation study. N. Engl. J. Med. (1999) 341:709–717.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Juurlink D.N., Mamdani M.M., Lee D.S., Kopp A., Austin P.C., Laupacis, et al. Rates of hyperkalaemia after publication of the randomised aldactone evaluation study. N. Engl. J. Med. (2004) 351:543–551.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. McMurray J.J.V., O'Meara E. Treatment of heart failure with spironolactone—trial and tribulations. N. Engl. J. Med. (2004) 351:526–528.[Free Full Text]
  14. Pitt B., Remme W., Zannad F., et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. (2003) 348:1309–1321.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Moss A.J., Zareba W., Hall W.J., et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. (2002) 346:877–883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Bloomfield D.M., Steinman R.C., Namerow P.B., Parides M., Davidenko J., Kaufman E.S., et al. Microvolt T-wave alternans distinguishes between patients likely and patients not likely to benefit from implanted cardiac defibrillator therapy. Circulation (2004) 110:1885–1889.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Kalra P.R., Moon J.C., Coats A.J. Do results of the ENABLE (Endothelin Antagonist Bosentan for Lowering Cardiac Events in Heart Failure) study spell the end for non-selective endothelin antagonism in heart failure. Int. J. Cardiol. (2002) 85:195–197.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Packer M., Califf R.M., Konstam M.A., et al. Comparison of omapatrilat, and enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure: the Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomised Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE). Circulation (2002) 106:920–926.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Remme W.J., Riegger G., Hildebrandt P., et al. The benefits of early combination therapy with carvedilol and an ACE-inhibitor in mild heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The carvedilol and ACE-inhibitor remodelling mild heart failure evaluation trial. Cardiovasc. Drugs Ther. (2004) 18:570–576.
  20. Pitt B., Segal Martinez F.A., et al. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure. Lancet (1997) 349:747–752.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. McNamara D.M., Holubkov R., Janosko K., et al. Pharmacologic interactions between beta-blocker therapy and the angiotensin converting enzyme deletion polymorphism in patients with congestive heart failure. Circulation (2001) 103:1644–1648.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. deGroote P., Helbecque N., Lamblin N., Hermant X., Amouyel P., Bauters C., et al. Beta-adrenergic receptor blockade and the angiotensin-converting enzyme deletion polymorphism in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2004) 6:17–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. McNamara D.M., Holubkov R., Postava L., Janosko K., MacGowan G.A., Mathier M., et al. Pharmacogenetic interactions between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy and the angiotensin converting enzyme deletion polymorphism in patients with heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (2004) 44:2019–2026.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Troughton R.W., Frampton C.M., Yandle T.G., Espiner E.A., Nicholls M.G., Richards A.M. Treatment of heart failure guided by plasma aminoterminal brain natriuretic peptide (N-BNP) concentrations. Lancet (2000) 355:1126–1130.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Simon T., Mary-Krause M., Funck Brentano C., et al. Bisoprolol dose–response relationship in patients with congestive heart failure: a subgroup analysis in the cardiac insufficiency bisoprolol study (CIBIS II). Eur. Heart J. (2003) 24:552–559.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Wikstrand J., Hjalmarson A., Waagstein F., et al. Dose of metoprolol CR/XL and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (2002) 40:491–498.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Colucci W.S., Packer M., Bristow M.R., 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. McMurray J.J., Ostergren J., Swedberg K., Granger C.B., Held P., Michelson E.L., et alCHARM Investigators and Committees. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added Trial. Lancet (2003) 362:767–7671.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Cohn J.N., Tognoni G. Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomised trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. (2001) 345:1667–1675.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Ali A., Walsh A., Ledwidge M.T., Ryan E., Travers B., Ryder M., et al. Multiple neurohumoral blockade in heart failure: are we dropping blood pressure too low? Eur. J. Heart Fail. Suppl. (2003) 2(1):150.[Free Full Text]
  31. Taylor A.L., Ziesche S., Yancy C., Carson P., D'Agostino R., Ferdinand K., et al. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. (2004) 351:2049–2057.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Lewis E.F., Johnston P.A., Johnston W., Colins C., Griffin L., Stevenson L.W. Preferences for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failure. J. Heart Lung Transplant. (2001) 20:1016–1024.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Stewart S., Blue L., Walker A., Morrison C., McMurray J.J. An economic analysis of specialist heart failure nurse management in the UK; can we afford not to implement it? Eur. Heart J. (2002) 23:1369–1378.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Ledwidge M., Barry M., Cahill J., et al. Is multidisciplinary care cost beneficial combined with optimal medical care. Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2003) 5:381–389.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J Heart FailHome page
D. Dobre, D. J. van Veldhuisen, M. J.L. DeJongste, C. Lucas, G. Cleuren, R. Sanderman, A. V. Ranchor, and F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
Prescription of beta-blockers in patients with advanced heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Clinical implications and survival
Eur J Heart Fail, March 1, 2007; 9(3): 280 - 286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?