The comparative prognostic value of plasma neurohormones at baseline in patients with heart failure enrolled in Val-HeFT

Roberto Latinia,*, Serge Massona, Inder Anandb, Monica Salioa, Allen Hesterc, Dianne Juddd, Simona Barleraa, Aldo P Maggionie, Gianni Tognonia and Jay N Cohnd for the Val-HeFT Investigators

a Department of Cardiovascular Research, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche ‘Mario Negri’,Milan, Italy
b Cardiology Section, V.A. Medical Centre,Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
c Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,East Hanover, New Jersey, USA
d Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School,Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
e Centro Studi ANMCO,Florence, Italy

* Correspondence to: Dr. Roberto Latini, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche ‘Mario Negri’, Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy. Tel: +39.0239014454; Fax: +39 0233200049
E-mail address: latini{at}marionegri.it

Received 29 January 2003; revised 1 October 2003; accepted 30 October 2003 See page 281, for the editorial comment on this article{dagger}

Abstract

Aims Plasma levels of individual neurohormones (NH) have been proposed as reliable indicators for risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF). Mainly because of small sample size, the predictive value of different NH has never been compared, while taking into account demographic, clinical and echocardiographic markers of risk in HF.

Methods and results Plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), norepinephrine (NE), renin activity (PRA), aldosterone (aldo) and endothelin were measured in 4300 patients before randomization in Val-HeFT. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between NH and two primary study outcomes, mortality and combined mortality and morbidity (M/M). Higher baseline values for all NH were related to mortality and M/M, with univariate hazard ratios ranging from 1.13 [95% CI 0.99–1.30] (aldo) to 2.47 [2.13–2.87] (BNP) for mortality, and from 1.24 [1.11–1.39] (aldo) to 2.56 [2.28–2.89] (BNP) for M/M. In multivariate analyses, BNP had the strongest association with outcome, followed by NE and PRA. Patients with more activation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system tended to show greater benefit from valsartan; but the trend was not statistically significant.

Conclusion All the NHs evaluated in 4300 patients with stable moderate to severe HF were found to be significant markers of outcome, despite therapy with ACEi, BB and randomization to an angiotensin receptor blocker or placebo. Several of these markers have been implicated as contributors to progression of HF, but BNP, which is thought to be protective, was the most powerful indicator for poor outcome.

Key Words: Heart failure • Neurohormones • Outcome • Brain natriuretic peptide • Norepinephrine • Aldosterone • Renin • Endothelin

1. Introduction

Activation of different neurohormone (NH) systems, especially the sympathetic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone systems (RAAS), plays a central role in the progression of heart failure (HF).1High circulating concentrations of several NHs have been found in patients with HF, in particular norepinephrine (NE), natriuretic peptides (ANP, BNP), plasma renin activity (PRA), aldosterone (aldo) and endothelin-1 (ET-1).2–6Based on these observations, and the seminal prognostic study on NE,7plasma levels of different NHs have been proposed as reliable indicators for risk stratification of patients with HF.8–10

Few data are available on the relative, independent contribution of each individual NH to predict outcome in HF when compared directly in the same population of patients, the most representative studies being those on V-HeFT II,9SOLVD Treatment11and SOLVD Registry.12In Val-HeFT13six different NH (NE, BNP, aldo, PRA, Big ET-1 and ET-1) were assayed at baseline in more than 4300 out of the 5010 patients randomized with stable HF of class II–IV severity. Since follow-up was for a median of 23 months, this was an ideal and unique setting in which to test comparatively the prognostic value of the different NHs.

2. Methods

2.1. Patients
Val-HeFT was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm multicentre trial. Five thousand and ten patients with stable, symptomatic HF, who were on prescribed HF therapy, with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <40% and LV internal diameter in diastole adjusted for body surface area (LVIDd/BSA) >2.9cm/m2, were enrolled from March 1997 to April 1999 at 302 clinical centres in 16 countries. All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment in the study. Study design and protocol have been presented in details previously.14

2.2. Blood sampling and assays
Blood for NH assays was sampled before randomization. Patients were supine for at least 30min before collection using an indwelling venous cannula. Blood was centrifuged at 4°C within 10min, the plasma aliquoted, shipped on dry ice and stored at –70°C until assayed in one of the two core laboratories, University of Minnesota for the US centres and Mario Negri Institute, Milan, Italy for the non-US centres.

Appropriate within- and between-laboratory controls were performed for each analyte. NE was assayed by high performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection,15BNP with an IRMA (Shionogi, Schering CIS, Milan, Italy), PRA with a RIA (PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Boston, USA), aldo with a non-extractive RIA (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), ET-1 with an extractive RIA (Peninsula, San Carlos, USA) for samples of patients randomized in US centres only, and Big ET-1 with a non-extractive ELISA (Biomedica, Vienna, Austria) for samples of patients randomized in non-US centres only.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 1996, and in all participating centres the local ethics committees had approved the research protocol prior to the study.

2.3. Statistical methods
Correlations between different NH were done by non-parametric Spearman method. Univariate (simple regression) and multivariate (multiple regression) Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between NH activation at baseline and the two primary study outcomes, mortality and combined mortality and morbidity (M/M), which was defined as cardiac arrest with resuscitation, hospitalization for heart failure or administration of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator drugs for 4h or more without hospitalization. Both end-points had been validated by an independent Endpoint Committee, blind to study treatment.13Patients were classified on the basis of the median levels of each neurohoromone at the time of randomization. All tests were made at a two-sided, 5% significance level. The univariate analysis (simple-regression) consisted of a Cox proportional hazard model with one baseline NH as the sole independent variable. Two multivariate analyses (multiple regression) were performed. In the first, the baseline NH values (for BNP, NE, PRA, and aldo) were used as independent variables; baseline ET-1 and Big ET-1 were not used in this multivariate analysis, since there were no patients for whom both endothelins were measured. In the second analysis, the demographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables that had a univariate relationship with outcome with a P<0.05 for either outcome were also included: age, gender, randomized treatment, NYHA class, aetiology, ejection fraction, LVIDd/BSA, sitting SBP, sitting HR, body-mass index, serum creatinine and bilirubin at baseline, concomitant therapy at baseline with beta-blockers (BB), diuretics or digoxin. In order to check for possible biases due to the arbitrary choice of cut-offs of NH concentration, the same Cox multivariate analysis was done on continuous variables. To ease the interpretability of its results, hazard ratios have been computed for intervals of 10pg/ml of aldosterone, BNP and NE, or 10ng/ml/h of PRA. The assumption of linear relationship between the end-points and NHs expressed as continuous variables has been assessed by plotting the log of the odds for death or M/M for each decile of NH concentration.

Since ACEi and BB favourably modulate NH activation in heart failure, we tested their possible interaction with NH at baseline in outcome prediction, with all the caution due to the non-randomized assignment to the subgroups. Breslow–Day chi-square test was used to test for significance of interaction between ACEi or BB and NH at baseline.

Results of Cox proportional hazard models are presented in order of increasing complexity to compare the prognostic value of baseline NH in different models, and to evaluate consistency of the data. Different models have been compared by means of the –2logL statistics and the likelihood ratio test has been considered. An increment in {chi}2≥3.84 (P<0.05) was used to assess the contribution of individual NHs to the model including clinical and echocardiographic variables in predicting higher risk of death or of M/M.

To explore whether NH concentrations at baseline predict the response to valsartan, hazard ratios (valsartan vs placebo) were computed for each of the two primary end-points in patients with NH concentrations at baseline below and above or equal to the median value. Breslow–Day chi square test was adopted to test for significance of interaction between randomized treatment and baseline NH concentrations on outcome.

3. Results

Of the 5010 patients randomized in Val-HeFT, baseline plasma concentrations of NH were available for about 4300 patients for NE, BNP, aldosterone and PRA, whereas Big ET-1 and ET-1 levels were available for 2359 non-US and 1934 US patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics of patients with and without neurohormonal data are overall comparable, except for small, but significant differences in ethnicity (white: 90.6 vs 88.7%), LVIDd/BSA (3.6±0.5 vs 3.7±0.5cm/m2), diuretics (85.0 vs 88.7%) and BB (35.9 vs 29.1%). These differences suggest that patients without neurohormonal data were slightly more severely ill; however, their 23-month outcome was not different for either mortality (19.3 vs 20.8%) or morbidity and mortality (30.4 vs 30.5%).

Plasma concentrations of the six NHs are reported in Table 1for the overall population, and by background therapy with ACEi and/or BB. Plasma aldosterone at baseline was maximal in patients receiving neither an ACEi nor a beta-blocker at randomization, and minimal in those taking both ACEi and BB at entry. PRA was highest in patients receiving ACEi, but when a beta-blocker was co-administered, PRA was reduced (4.38 vs 6.84ng/ml/h). ET-1 was lower in patients receiving BB at entry than in those not on BB. Concentrations of NE and Big ET-1 at randomization were unaffected by concomitant therapy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Plasma concentrations of different NH in patients before randomization to Val-HeFT trial in the overall population and by background therapy with ACE inhibitors (ACEi) and/or beta-blockers (BB)a

 
Several NHs were found to significantly correlate with each other. The strongest positive correlations were BNP vs NE, Big ET-1 and ET-1, and aldo vs PRA, whereas a negative significant correlation was found between BNP and PRA (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Non-parametric correlations between neurohormones before randomization to Val-HeFT trial

 
3.1. Baseline neurohormones and outcome — simple regression
Baseline NH values above the median were significantly related to mortality and to the combined end-point of mortality and morbidity, with simple regression hazard ratios ranging from 1.13 [95% CI 0.99–1.30] (aldo) to 2.47 [95% CI 2.13–2.87] (BNP) for mortality, and from 1.24 [95% CI 1.11–1.39] (aldo) to 2.56 [95% CI 2.28–2.89] (BNP) for combined M/M (Fig. 1a and b).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality (a) and for mortality and morbidity (b) according to baseline neurohormones, high (>=median) vs low (<median). Cox simple-regression-analysis.

 
Concomitant treatment with ACEi or BB, both active on NHs, did not influence the predictive value of NHs at baseline with one exception, ACEi with aldosterone. Odds ratios for mortality in patients with aldosterone above the median were 1.06 [95% CI 0.90–1.25] and 2.39 [95% CI 1.28–4.49], in patients on ACEi and not on ACEi, respectively. The interaction between ACEi and aldosterone on mortality was statistically significant (Breslow–Day chi-square test P=0.0128). The results were similar when morbidity and mortality was used as outcome (P=0.0492). However, when the interaction term was introduced in the Cox multiple regression model, it was no longer statistically significant.

3.2. Baseline neurohormones and outcome — Cox multiple regression analysis
When the hazard ratios for higher values of BNP, NE, PRA, or aldo were adjusted for each of the other three NHs, aldosterone was no longer predictive of mortality whereas the other three NHs were still significantly associated with increased mortality, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.51 [95% CI 1.30–1.74] (NE) to 2.48 [95% CI 2.13–2.88] (BNP) (Fig. 2a). The same analysis showed association of all four NHs to combined M/M, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.12 [95% CI 1.00–1.25] (aldo) to 2.55 [95% CI 2.26–2.87] (BNP) (Fig. 2b).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality (a) and for mortality and morbidity (b) according to baseline neurohormones, high (>=median) vs low (<median). Cox simple-regression-analysis. Results for each of the four NHs analysed include adjustments for each of the other three NHs.

 
3.3. Baseline neurohormones, patient characteristics, concomitant treatment and outcome
When NH levels were considered along with demographic, clinical and echocardiographic data in a Cox multiple regression analysis, a baseline BNP value greater or equal to the median of 97pg/ml was the strongest predictor of increased mortality with a hazard ratio of 1.94 [95% CI 1.66–2.28] (Fig. 3a), as shown by the highest increase in –2logL (Table 3). Also high NE and PRA, but not aldo, were independent predictors of death with hazard ratios of 1.37 [95% CI 1.18–1.58] and 1.27 [95% CI 1.09–1.48], respectively.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality (a) and for mortality and morbidity (b) according to baseline neurohormones (NH), high (>=median) vs low (<median). Cox simple-regression-analysis. Results for each neurohormone include adjustments for each of the other three NHs and for demographic, clinical/echocardiographic variables.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 Chi-square values for Cox models including demographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables and selected combinations of the baseline neurohormones, BNP, NE, and PRAa

 
Hazard ratios for combined M/M were highest for high BNP, 2.06 [95% CI 1.82–2.33] (Fig. 3b). Of the other NHs, only high NE was independently associated with increased risk, with a hazard ratio of 1.34 [95% CI 1.20–1.51], whereas aldo and PRA were not associated.

3.4. Baseline neurohormones and outcome — combination of several neurohormones
Although BNP proved to be the strongest NH predictor of outcome, even after adjusting for baseline demographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables, also NE and PRA provided additive prognostic value for death, whereas only BNP and NE contributed to prediction of M/M (Table 3, Fig. 4). In both cases, BNP provided the largest increase in prognostic information.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4 Chi-square values for Cox models including demographic, clinical and echocardiographic variables (Clinical) and stepwise additions of the baseline neurohormones, BNP, NE, and PRA. Addition of a variable to the multivariate Cox model has been evaluated by means of –2logL criterion, assuming a {chi}2distribution. Increments of {chi}2(1)≥3.84 indicate that the variable added to the model is statistically significant (i.e. when NE is added to the model already including clinical variables and BNP, {chi}2increases by 21 for mortality, P<0.0001; when PRA is added to clinical variables, BNP and NE, {chi}2increases by 2 for mortality and morbidity, P=0.2). *Denotes a significant increment of {chi}2,numbers below the curves are the values of {chi}2for different models. BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; NE, norepinephrine, PRA, plasma renin activity.

 
When NH were considered as continuous variables, their prognostic value in predicting mortality/morbidity was consistent with the analysis based on median cut-off values. However, since analysis of NH as continuous variables yielded small hazard ratios and narrow 95% confidence interval, Cox multiple regression analysis was also performed with baseline NH concentrations expressed with increments of 10pg/ml of aldosterone, BNP and NE or 10ng/ml/h of PRA, and results of the analysis presented in Table 4. Again, the data were consistent with the analysis based on median cut-off values (Fig. 3). For instance, an increment of 10pg/ml of baseline BNP concentration corresponded to a relative increase by 1.2% for mortality (P<0.0001) whereas similar increase in aldosterone was not statistically significant (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals and chi-squares for all-cause mortality and for mortality and morbidity (M/M) according to baseline neurohormones, expressed as increments of 10pg/ml of aldosterone, BNP and NE, or 10ng/ml/h of PRA. Cox multiple-regression analysisa

 
3.5. Effect of randomized treatment on the relationship between neurohormones and outcome
Patients with higher PRA or aldosterone at baseline tended to benefit more from valsartan assignment than those with lower PRA or aldosterone (Fig. 5); however, the difference in valsartan effect by baseline NH (above/below the median) did not reach statistical significance. A similar trend was present for BNP, but again the interaction (baseline NH by treatment) was not statistically significant.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5 Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality (a) and for mortality and morbidity (b) according to baseline concentrations of different neurohormones (NH) (above/below the median). Hazard ratios (valsartan vs placebo in the whole population of 4129 patients with available NH data) were 1.023 [95% CI 0.892–1.174] for mortality and 0.913 [95% CI 0.818–1.019] for morbidity and mortality.

 
4. Discussion

The individual baseline NHs evaluated in patients with moderate to severe, stable HF in the present study were found to be significant markers of mortality and morbidity as previously reported in several studies.7–10,17,18The main new finding of this study is that BNP is the most powerful indicator of outcome in this large and representative population of HF patients, treated with background therapy that included ACEi and BB in addition to digoxin and diuretics. BNP proved to be the strongest predictor of mortality and morbidity, but NE and PRA were found to have independent prognostic value and to significantly increase the predictability of outcome when added to BNP assay. Valsartan did not significantly modify the predictive value of neurohormonal activation.

Patients in Val-HeFT were treated with background drug therapy and half were randomized to receive valsartan. ACEi, prescribed to 93% of the population, are known to raise PRA levels and reduce NE and BNP.8,9,19BB may reduce PRA20–22and, may23or may not22,24reduce BNP. In Val-HeFT, lowest baseline PRA in patients on BB supports the view that these drugs modulate not only the adrenergic, but also the renin-angiotensin system. The lower baseline concentrations of BNP in patients on BB in Val-HeFT might be partly due to lower severity of the disease in this subgroup. The lower levels of aldosterone in patients on ACEi compared to those not on ACEi suggests the absence of complete aldosterone ‘escape’.25Valsartan was shown in Val-HeFT to reduce NE and BNP.16Nonetheless, baseline hormone levels remained highly predictive of subsequent mortality and morbidity. Thus the confounding influence of NH inhibiting therapy for HF does not appear, in general, to obscure the relationship between hormone levels and outcome. However, an exception needs to be pointed out: the prognostic value of aldosterone was very low, if any, in all patients, but aldosterone above the median at baseline was a significant marker of worse outcome in the minority of patients (7%) not on ACEi at randomization. The lower concentrations of aldosterone at baseline found in patients on ACEi in Val-HeFT (132±2pg/ml vs 190±11pg/ml, ACEi yes vs no, P<0.0001) might explain the lack of relation with outcome in this group. However, the limitation of any post-hoc analysis and that due to uneven distribution of non-randomized treatments (i.e. 113 patients not on ACEi with aldo < median and 194 patients with aldo >=median) should be pointed out. On the other hand, neither ACEi nor BB affected the prognostic value of PRA at baseline. Thus PRA, even in the presence of ACEi which increase its levels, still remains a prognostic marker in Val-HeFT.

The relationship between elevated hormone levels and poor outcome could reflect the possibility that hormonal activation is contributing to progression of HF or that the elevated levels are merely serving as markers for the severity of the disease. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system and aldosterone have all been implicated pathophysiologically in the progression of structural remodelling of the left ventricle and vasculature.26–28Indeed, drug therapy to inhibit these systems has a favourable effect on prognosis, either alone or in combination.29It is surprising, therefore, that BNP, which is thought to be protective rather than deleterious, exhibits so much more predictive value. Indeed, aldosterone provides little predictive value despite the evidence that blocking it produces a striking reduction in mortality in heart failure.30Plasma hormone levels do not by themselves describe theactivity of NH activation and it is thus possible that tissue effects and receptor sensitivity might be playing a role.31,32

Benefit from valsartan on morbidity and mortality tended to be higher in patients with higher aldosterone or PRA at baseline. Although the interaction did not reach statistical significance, these results suggest that selective Ang II blockade might be more effective when RAAS is more activated. However, the overall lack of statistical significance in tests for interaction between baseline NHs and study treatments on outcome does not encourage the assessment of NH activation to predict the response to valsartan. In CONSENSUS8and V-HeFT II9benefits from ACE inhibition were more marked in patients with elevated plasma NHs. In a study in 206 patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction,33carvedilol reduced mortality and morbidity more in patients with baseline BNP above median but with plasma NE below median. In 534 post-myocardial infarction patients in the SAVE trial, captopril did not appear to modify the relationship between NH activation and outcome.34In the 450 patients in V-HeFT III, treatment with felodipine did not reduce deaths from all causes in the overall population or in the group with high ANP and NE.35From all available evidence it appears that there is no agreement on a neurohormonal predictor of response to drug therapy in HF. Furthermore, the higher risk associated with intense NH activation may render a mortality reduction in this subgroup the consequence of statistical likelihood.

The value of BNP as a sensitive guide to outcome in HF is consistent with recent publications emphasizing its value in predicting re-hospitalization and in diagnosing HF.36–38It should be noted, however, that half the patients with chronic HF in Val-HeFT had BNP levels below the 100pg/ml threshold that has been used to diagnose HF.39Furthermore, the lowest quartile (<41pg/ml) was well within the normal limits for BNP.40The data suggest that a surprisingly high fraction of patients with well-established and well-controlled chronic HF may present with normal BNP levels. Nonetheless, the normal levels appear to be associated with a good prognosis.

This NH data from Val-HeFT has important potential clinical applications. Hormonal assays, particularly BNP and NE, could be useful as a prognostic marker in individual patients for therapeutic decision-making. Furthermore, in trial design aimed at reducing events, plasma hormone assays in screened patients might be used to identify a high-risk population in order to reduce the sample size required to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy on end-points. The powerful independent prognostic value of BNP, NE and PRA, after correcting for the influence of the usual clinical markers used to identify high risk, make it clear that the current criteria for clinical trial entry could be markedly enhanced by hormone assay.

All evidence from Val-HeFT confirms and extends the high predictive value of BNP concentrations, not only for death, but also for HF hospitalizations, the most frequently occurring component of the combined morbidity end-point.13These data, together with the marked and sustained decrease of BNP observed with valsartan, further supports the value of BNP as a surrogate marker41in the follow-up of patients with HF and in individualizing drug dosing.

Acknowledgments

Paola Cardano provided valuable statistical assistance; Marjorie Carlson, Noeleen De Angelis, Tarcisio Vago and Gabriella Baldi contributed effectively to neurohormonal assays in Minneapolis and Milan, respectively. This study was supported by a grant from Novartis Pharma, Basle, Switzerland.

Footnotes

{dagger} doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2003.10.030 Back

References

  1. Schrier RW, Abraham W. Hormones and hemodynamics in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:577–585.[Free Full Text]
  2. Thomas JA, Marks BH. Plasma norepinephrine in congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1978;41:233–243.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Levine TB, Francis GS, Goldsmith SR et al. Activity of the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin system assessed by plasma hormone levels and their relationship to hemodynamic abnormalities in congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1982;49:1659–1666.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Mukoyama M, Nakao K, Hosoda K et al. Brain natriuretic peptide as a novel cardiac hormone in humans. Evidence for an exquisite dual natriuretic peptide system, atrial natriuretic peptide and brain natriuretic peptide. J Clin Invest. 1991;87:1402–1412.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Wei CM, Lerman A, Rodeheffer RJ et al. Endothelin in human congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1994;89:1580–1586.[Abstract]
  6. Sigurdsson A, Swedberg K. The role of neurohormonal activation in chronic heart failure and postmyocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 1996;132:229–234.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Cohn JN, Levine TB, Olivari MT et al. Plasma norepinephrine as a guide to prognosis in patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:819–823.[Abstract]
  8. Swedberg K, Eneroth P, Kjekshus J et al. Hormones regulating cardiovascular function in patients with severe congestive heart failure and their relation to mortality. CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Circulation. 1990;82:1730–1736.[Abstract]
  9. Francis GS, Cohn JN, Johnson G, for the V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity, and congestive heart failure. Relations to survival and the effects of therapy in V-HeFT II. Circulation. 1993;87(VI):40–48.[ISI]
  10. Koglin J, Pehlivanli S, Schwaiblmair M et al. Role of brain natriuretic peptide in risk stratification of patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1934–1941.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  11. Benedict CR, Shelton B, Johnstone DE et al. Prognostic significance of plasma norepinephrine in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 1996;94:690–697.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Benedict CR, Johnstone DE, Weiner DH et al. Relation of neurohumoral activation to clinical variables and degree of ventricular dysfunction: a report from the Registry of Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. SOLVD Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:1410–1420.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Cohn JN, Tognoni G, for the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1667–1675.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Cohn JN, Tognoni G, Glazer RD et al. Rationale and design of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial: a large multinational trial to assess the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, on morbidity and mortality in congestive heart failure. J Cardiac Fail. 1999;5:155–160.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Goldstein DS, Feuerstein G, Izzo JL Jr et al. Validity and reliability of liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection for measuring plasma levels of norepinephrine and epinephrine in man. Life Sci. 1981;28:467–475.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  16. Latini R, Masson S, Anand I et al. Effects of valsartan on circulating brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine in symptomatic chronic heart failure. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Circulation. 2002;106:2454–2458.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Maeda K, Tsutamoto T, Wada A et al. High levels of plasma brain natriuretic peptide and interleukin-6 after optimized treatment for heart failure are independent risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;36:1587–1593.[CrossRef]
  18. Ishii J, Nomura M, Nakamura Y et al. Risk stratification using a combination of cardiac troponin T and brain natriuretic peptide in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:691–695.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  19. Benedict CR, Francis GS, Shelton B et al. Effect of long-term enalapril therapy on neurohormones in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. SOLVD Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:1151–1157.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  20. Bühler FR, Laragh JH, Baer L et al. Propranolol inhibition of renin secretion: a specific approach to diagnosis and treatment of renin-dependent hypertensive diseases. N Engl J Med. 1972;287:1209–1214.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Teeuw AH, Leenen FH, Geyskes GG et al. Atenolol and chlorthalidone on blood pressure, heart rate, and plasma renin activity in hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;25:294–302.[ISI][Medline]
  22. The RESOLVD Investigators. Effects of metoprolol CR in patients with ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy. The randomized evaluation of strategies for left ventricular dysfunction pilot study. Circulation. 2000;101:378–384.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Fujimura M, Yasumura Y, Ishida Y et al. Improvement in LV function in response to carvedilol is accompanied by attenuation of neurohormonal activation in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. J Cardiac Fail. 2000;6:3–10.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Luchner A, Burnett JC, Jougasaki M et al. Augmentation of the cardiac natriuretic peptides by beta-receptor antagonism: evidence from a population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1839–1844.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  25. Staessen J, Lijnen P, Fagard R et al. Rise in plasma concentration of aldosterone during long-term angiotensin II suppression. J Endocrinol. 1981;91:457–465.[Abstract]
  26. Weber KT. Aldosterone in congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1689–1697.[Free Full Text]
  27. McMurray J, Pfeffer MA. New therapeutic options in congestive heart failure: Part I. Circulation. 2002;105:2099–2106.[Free Full Text]
  28. Cohn JN. Sympathetic nervous system in heart failure. Circulation. 2002;106:2417–2418.[Free Full Text]
  29. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB et al. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet. 2003;362:759–766.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  30. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709–717.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Dzau VJ, Re R. Tissue angiotensin system in cardiovascular medicine. A paradigm shift? Circulation. 1994;89:493–498.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Asano K, Dutcher DL, Port D et al. Selective downregulation of the angiotensin II AT1-receptor subtype in failing human ventricular myocardium. Circulation. 1997;95:1193–1200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Richards AM, Doughty R, Nicholls MG et al. Neurohumoral prediction of benefit from carvedilol in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Australian-New Zealand Heart Failure Group. Circulation. 1999;99:786–792.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Rouleau JL, Packer M, Moye L et al. Prognostic value of neurohumoral activation in patients with an acute myocardial infarction: effect of captopril. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:583–591.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Smith RF, Germanson T, Judd D et al. Plasma norepinephrine and atrial natriuretic peptide in heart failure: influence of felodipine in the third Vasodilator Heart Failure Trial. V-HeFT III investigators. J Cardiac Fail. 2000;6:97–107.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Hobbs FDR, Davis RC, Roalfe AK et al. Reliability of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide assay in diagnosis of heart failure: cohort study in representative and high risk community populations. Br Med J. 2002;324:1–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Maisel AS, Krishnaswamy P, Nowak RM et al. Rapid measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide in the emergency diagnosis of heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161–167.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Latini R, Masson S, De Angelis N et al. Role of natriuretic peptide in the diagnosis and management of heart failure: current concepts. J Cardiac Fail. 2002;8:288–299.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  39. McCullough PA, Nowak RM, McCord J et al. B-type natriuretic peptide and clinical judgment in emergency diagnosis of heart failure: analysis from Breathing Not Properly (BNP) Multinational Study. Circulation. 2002;106:416–422.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Redfield MM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide concentration: impact of age and gender. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:976–982.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  41. Anand IS, Florea VG, Fisher L. Surrogate end points in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1414–1421.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Related articles in EHJ:

Neurohormones in heart failure: predicting outcomes, optimizing care
Michael M. Givertz and Eugene Braunwald
EHJ 2004 25: 281-282. [Extract] [Full Text]