Beta-blockers and spironolactone in heart failure.

Neurohormonal antagonism is now recognized as an essential treatment modality for heart failure. As a prime example, the benefits of blocking the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are clearly established for all four New York Heart Association classes. In this clinical trials review, we discuss two other therapies with neurohormonal targets: beta-blockers and the sympathetic nervous system, and the aldosterone antagonist spironolactone.

Effects of amlodipine on exercise tolerance, quality of life, and left ventricular function in patients with heart failure from left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: A preliminary study suggested that the long-acting late-generation calcium-channel blocker amlodipine has favorable effects on exercise tolerance and is safe to use in heart failure, in contrast to earlier generation agents. The goal of 2 multicenter studies was to assess the effect of adjunctive therapy with amlodipine in addition to standard therapy on exercise capacity, quality of life, left ventricular function, and safety parameters in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODS: Two large multicenter trials examining the effects of amlodipine on these parameters over a 12-week period of therapy were undertaken in patients with mild to moderate heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. A total of 437 patients with stable heart failure were studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective design. RESULTS: Amlodipine at a dose of 10 mg/day in addition to standard therapy in such patients was associated with no significant difference in change in exercise tolerance on a Naughton protocol compared with placebo in each trial. Among all patients taking amlodipine, exercise time increased 53 +/- 9 (SE) seconds; exercise time for those taking placebo increased 66 +/- 9 seconds (P = not significant). There were no significant differences in changes of quality of life parameters between amlodipine- and placebo-treated patients, and there were no significant differences in symptom scores or New York Heart Association classification between groups. Left ventricular function (measured as ejection fraction) improved 3. 4% +/- 0.5% in amlodipine-treated patients and 1.5% +/- 0.5% in placebo-treated patients (P =.007). There was no statistically significant excess of important adverse events (episodes of worsening heart failure in 10% amlodipine-treated vs 6.3% of placebo-treated patients) or differences in need for changes in background medication between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 10 mg of amlodipine per day to standard therapy in patients with heart failure is associated with no significant improvement in exercise time compared with placebo therapy over a 12-week period, and there was no increased incidence of adverse events. These data suggest that the addition of amlodipine to standard therapy in heart failure will not result in additional efficacy per se beyond standard therapy.

Ambulatory ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure do not specifically predict an increased risk of sudden death. PROMISE (Prospective Randomized Milrinone Survival Evaluation) Investigators.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmias are a frequent finding in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients and a cause of concern for physicians caring for them. Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the importance of ventricular arrhythmias as predictors of sudden death in patients with CHF. This study examined the independent predictive value of ventricular arrhythmias for sudden death and all-cause mortality in PROMISE (Prospective Randomized Milrinone Survival Evaluation). METHODS AND RESULTS: Ventricular arrhythmias were analyzed and quantified by use of prespecified criteria on baseline ambulatory ECGs from 1080 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV symptoms and a left ventricular ejection fraction

Hemodynamic comparison of twice daily metoprolol tartrate with once daily metoprolol succinate in congestive heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the hemodynamic effects of twice daily metoprolol tartrate (MT) and once daily metoprolol succinate (MS) in congestive heart failure patients. BACKGROUND: Adverse hemodynamic effects with MT demonstrated during initiation persist with drug readministration during chronic therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 6.25 mg MT or 25 mg MS orally and the dose was gradually increased to a target of 50 mg twice a day or 100 mg once a day, respectively. Hemodynamic measurements were obtained at baseline and after three months of therapy--both before and after drug readministration. RESULTS: Long term metoprolol therapy produced significant functional, exercise and hemodynamic benefits with no difference in response between either metoprolol preparation in the 27 patients (MT [14], MS [13]). When full dose metoprolol was readministered during chronic therapy, there were parallel adverse hemodynamic effects in both drug groups. Cardiac index decreased by 0.6 liters/min/m2 (p < 0.0001) with MT and by 0.5 liters/min/m2 (p < 0.0001) with MS. Systematic vascular resistance increased by 253 dyne-sec-cm(-5) (p < 0.001) with MT and by 267 dyne-sec-cm(-5) (p < 0.0005) with MS. Stroke volume index decreased by 7.0 ml/m2 (p < 0.0005) with MT and by 6.5 ml/m2 (p < 0.0001) with MS, while SWI decreased by 6.2 g-m/m2 (p < 0.0005) with MT and by 6.0 g-m/m2 (p < 0.001) with MS. CONCLUSION: Metoprolol tartrate and MS produce similar hemodynamic and clinical effects acutely and chronically despite the fourfold greater starting dose of MS used in this study. A more rapid initiation with readily available starting doses of MS may offer distinct advantages compared with MT in treating chronic heart failure patients with beta-adrenergic blocking agents.

Are all beta blockers the same for heart failure?

Based on impressive morbidity and mortality data using beta blockers in heart failure, this therapy has now become part of the standard of care for patients with New York Heart Association II/III symptoms. The question remains whether there are clinically relevant differences between the beta blockers that have shown beneficial effects. This review summarizes the major mortality trials, and examines the smaller comparative trials of second and third generation beta blockers.

Short-term and long-term hemodynamic and clinical effects of metoprolol alone and combined with amlodipine in patients with chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Initiation of beta-blocker therapy is often limited by worsening congestive heart failure, which may manifest as worsening hemodynamics. Deleterious hemodynamic effects might be mitigated with the vasodilation of combined calcium channel/beta-blocker therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, randomized study assessed the safety and efficacy of metoprolol alone or combined with amlodipine on hemodynamic parameters at baseline, 2 hours after the first dose of study medication, and after 12 weeks of therapy in patients receiving background triple therapy for mild to severe heart failure. Functional, exercise, and hormonal status were assessed at baseline and end of study. Twenty-nine patients (mean age 50 +/- 12.1 years) were enrolled; 21 completed 12 weeks of treatment. Mean ejection fraction at baseline was 13.4% +/- 5.7%; 79% of patients had heart failure classified as New York Heart Association class III, and 66% had heart failure of idiopathic origin. Heart rate and blood pressure did not change with short-term therapy in either group. The first dose of both regimens produced significant increases in systemic vascular resistance and significant decreases in cardiac output and index and stroke volume and stroke work indexes; combination therapy acutely yielded small but statistically significant increases in pulmonary artery, pulmonary capillary wedge, and right atrial pressures. Long-term therapy with both regimens produced significant decreases in heart rate, systemic vascular resistance, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and significant increases in cardiac output and index and stroke volume and stroke work indexes. Combination therapy produced significant long-term decreases in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: There was no further measurable benefit with the addition of amlodipine to metoprolol compared with the effects of metoprolol alone. Therapy with metoprolol alone and the combination of metoprolol and amlodipine was well tolerated in patients with mild to severe heart failure, as evidenced by a lack of adverse effects on hemodynamic parameters over the short term and clinical and hemodynamic improvement with long-term treatment.

Prospective, randomized comparison of effect of long-term treatment with metoprolol or carvedilol on symptoms, exercise, ejection fraction, and oxidative stress in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: With beta-blocker use becoming more prevalent in treating chronic heart failure (CHF), the choice of drugs raises important theoretical and practical questions. Although the second-generation compound metoprolol is beta1-selective, the third-generation compound carvedilol is beta-nonselective, with ancillary pharmacological properties including alpha-blockade and antioxidant effects. A prospective comparison of these 2 agents can address the issue of optimal adrenergic blockade in selecting agents for therapy in CHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with symptomatic stable heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either carvedilol or metoprolol in addition to standard therapy for CHF. Measured variables included symptoms, exercise, ejection fraction, and thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) as an indirect marker of free radical activity. Metoprolol and carvedilol were well tolerated, and both patient groups showed beneficial effects of beta-blocker therapy in each of the measured parameters, with no between-group differences. Ejection fraction increased over 6 months from 18+/-6.3% to 23+/-8.7% (P<0.005) with metoprolol and from 19+/-8.5% to 25+/-9.9% (P<0.0005) with carvedilol (P=NS between groups). With metoprolol, TBARS values decreased from 4.7+/-0.9 nmol/mL at baseline to 4.2+/-1.5 nmol/mL at month 4 to 3.9+/-1.0 nmol/mL at month 6 (P<0.0001). With carvedilol, there was a parallel decline from 4.7+/-1.4 to 4.2+/-1.3 to 4.1+/-1.2 nmol/mL over the same time frame (P<0.025), with no between-group difference in these changes. CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol and metoprolol showed parallel beneficial effects in the measured parameters over 6 months, with no relevant between-group differences in this heart failure population.

Noninvasive measurement of cardiac output by an acetylene uptake technique and simultaneous comparison with thermodilution in ICU patients.

A simple, accurate, and noninvasive method of cardiac output measurement can be an extremely useful tool for the clinician and researcher. This study used the acetylene gas uptake technique to measure the absorption of acetylene into the pulmonary circulation during a constant exhalation, which is proportional to the pulmonary capillary blood flow and to the cardiac output, assuming no anatomic shunts. We compared cardiac output measured simultaneously by this and by the standard thermodilution (TD) technique in 21 patients in the ICU with a variety of medical and surgical conditions and a wide range of cardiac outputs. We also compared the two techniques in 19 ambulatory patients with a 2-h interval between the invasive and noninvasive test to assess variability over time. The two tests had an excellent correlation when done simultaneously with a correlation coefficient of 0.89 (p < 0.001). With a 2-h interval between the two tests, the correlation coefficient was 0.66 (p = 0.0018). Nine patients in the simultaneous group had cardiomyopathy. When they were excluded, the correlation coefficient increased to 0.96. Most of these patients had documented tricuspid regurgitation (TR), which may underlie the greater difference between acetylene uptake and TD values, with consistently higher TD values in these patients. This study confirms the correlation between the acetylene uptake and the standard invasive TD techniques in sick patients with various medical and surgical conditions and a wide range of cardiac outputs. Furthermore, we believe this would be a more accurate method for measuring cardiac output in patients with cardiomyopathy and TR because it is based only on pulmonary capillary blood flow.

Beta blockade in congestive heart failure: persistent adverse haemodynamic effects during chronic treatment with subsequent doses.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the acute adverse haemodynamic effects of beta blockade in patients with congestive heart failure persist during chronic treatment. DESIGN: Sequential haemodynamic evaluation of heart failure patients at baseline and after three months of continuous treatment with the beta 1 selective antagonist metoprolol. SETTING: Cardiac care unit in university hospital. PATIENTS: 26 patients with moderate to severe congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association grade II to IV) and background treatment with digoxin, diuretics, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 25%. METHODS: Baseline variables included a six minute walk, maximum oxygen consumption, and right heart catheterisation. All patients received metoprolol 6.25 mg orally twice daily initially and the dose was gradually increased to a target of 50 mg twice daily. Haemodynamic measurements were repeated after three months of treatment, both before (trough) and after drug readministration. RESULTS: Long term metoprolol had functional, exercise, and haemodynamic benefits. It produced decreases in heart rate, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and systemic vascular resistance, and increases in cardiac index, stroke volume index, and stroke work index. However, when full dose metoprolol was readministered during chronic treatment, there was a reduction in cardiac index (from 2.8 (SD 0.46) to 2.3 (0.38) l/min/m2, p << 0.001) and stroke work index (from 31.4 (11.1) to 26.6 (10.0) g.m/m2, p < 0.001) and an increase in systemic vascular resistance (from 943 (192) to 1160 (219) dyn.s.cm-5, p << 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse haemodynamic effects of beta blockers in heart failure persist during chronic treatment, as shown by worsening haemodynamic indices with subsequent doses.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of carvedilol in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. The PRECISE Trial. Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Carvedilol on Symptoms and Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Carvedilol has improved the symptomatic status of patients with moderate to severe heart failure in single-center studies, but its clinical effects have not been evaluated in large, multicenter trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 278 patients with moderate to severe heart failure (6-minute walk distance, 150 to 450 m) and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.35 at 31 centers. After an open-label, run-in period, each patient was randomly assigned (double-blind) to either placebo (n = 145) or carvedilol (n = 133; target dose, 25 to 50 mg BID) for 6 months, while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an ACE inhibitor remained constant. Compared with placebo, patients in the carvedilol group had a greater frequency of symptomatic improvement and lower risk of clinical deterioration, as evaluated by changes in the NYHA functional class (P = .014) or by a global assessment of progress judged either by the patient (P = .002) or by the physician (P < .001). In addition, treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significant increase in ejection fraction (P < .001) and a significant decrease in the combined risk of morbidity and mortality (P = .029). In contrast, carvedilol therapy had little effect on indirect measures of patient benefit, including changes in exercise tolerance or quality-of-life scores. The effects of the drug were similar in patients with ischemic heart disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy as the cause of heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that, in addition to its favorable effects on survival, carvedilol produces important clinical benefits in patients with moderate to severe heart failure treated with digoxin, diuretics, and an ACE inhibitor.

Combined alpha-beta blockade (doxazosin plus metoprolol) compared with beta blockade alone in chronic congestive heart failure.

There has been growing evidence for the benefits of beta blockers, but alpha blockers have not shown sustained benefits in chronic congestive heart failure (CHF). Thirty patients with moderate to severe CHF (New York Heart Association class II to IV) were sequentially assigned to receive metoprolol 6.25 mg with the alpha-1 antagonist doxazosin 4 mg/day or metoprolol alone. The dose of metoprolol was gradually increased to a target dose of 50 mg orally twice daily. Hemodynamic measurements were obtained before drug therapy, 2 hours after the first dose of combined alpha-beta therapy or metoprolol alone, and after 3 months of continuous treatment. Nuclear ejection fraction, plasma norepinephrine, and submaximal and maximal exercise capacity were also measured before and after chronic therapy. With initial combined drug administration, mean arterial pressure, left ventricular filling pressure, and systemic vascular resistance decreased significantly compared with results after metoprolol alone. However, after 3 months of continuous therapy, both treatment groups showed similar and significant reductions in systemic vascular resistance and heart rate, with significant increases in cardiac index, stroke volume index, stroke work index, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity. Furthermore, the next dose of chronic combined medication no longer showed vasodilating effects. Chronic therapy with fixed-dose doxazosin and increasing doses of metoprolol produced identical effects as those seen in patients receiving metoprolol alone.

Safety and efficacy of beta blockade in patients with chronic congestive heart failure awaiting transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donor availability remains a limiting factor for heart transplantation while transplant waiting time entails significant morbidity and mortality. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of long-term beta blockade as optimization of therapy in patients with severe congestive heart failure already receiving digoxin, diuretics, and converting enzyme inhibitors awaiting transplantation. METHODS: The beta-1 antagonist metoprolol was given to 19 patients with moderate to severe congestive heart failure. Hemodynamic, clinical, and neurohormonal measurements were obtained before drug therapy and after 3 months of treatment. Patients initially received 6.25 mg of metoprolol orally twice daily which was increased to a target dose of 50 mg twice daily over several weeks. RESULTS: Metoprolol produced significant clinical, exercise, and hemodynamic benefits. Long-term therapy was associated with improvements in New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, 6-minute walk, and peak maximal oxygen consumption. There were significant decreases in heart rate, pulmonary arterial systolic pressure, and left ventricular filling pressure with significant increases in stroke volume index and stroke work index. Four patients were removed from the transplant list after improving to New York Heart Association I. Only one patient required hospitalization during the first 6 months of therapy. There were no deaths caused by progressive heart failure; however, one patient died suddenly. CONCLUSIONS: Beta blockade with metoprolol can be safely administered to patients awaiting heart transplantation producing clinical, exercise, and hemodynamic improvements. Thus, beta blockade may prove to be a safe and cost-effective bridge to transplantation.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the long-term efficacy of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that beta-adrenergic blocking drugs are effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate heart failure, but the utility and safety of these drugs in patients with advanced disease have not been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 56 patients with severe chronic heart failure into a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the vasodilating beta-blocker carvedilol. All patients had advanced heart failure, as evidenced by a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.16 +/- 0.01 and a mean maximal oxygen consumption of 13.6 +/- 0.6 mL.kg-1.min-1 despite digitalis, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (if tolerated). After a 3-week, open-label, up-titration period, 49 of the 56 patients were assigned (in a double-blind fashion using a 2:1 randomization) to receive either carvedilol (25 mg BID, n = 33) or matching placebo (n = 16) for 14 weeks, while background therapy remained constant. Hemodynamic and functional variables were measured at the start and end of the study. Compared with the placebo group, patients in the carvedilol group showed improved cardiac performance, as reflected by an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (P = .005) and stroke volume index (P = .010) and a decrease in pulmonary wedge pressure, mean right atrial pressure, and systemic vascular resistance (P = .003, .002, and .017, respectively). In addition, compared with placebo, patients treated with carvedilol benefited clinically, as shown by an improvement in symptom scores (P = .002), functional class (P = .013), and submaximal exercise tolerance (P = .006). The combined risk of death, worsening heart failure, and life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia was lower in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group (P = .028), but carvedilol-treated patients had more dizziness and advanced heart block. CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol produces clinical and hemodynamic improvement in patients who have severe heart failure despite treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Lymphocyte G proteins reflect response to treatment in congestive heart failure.

Congestive heart failure is associated with chronotropic and inotropic hyporesponsiveness to adrenergic stimulation. A decrease in Gs alpha or an increase in Gi alpha is associated with a decrease in adenylyl cyclase activity. The current study assessed G proteins in response to treatment with direct-acting vasodilators and correlated changes in lymphocyte beta-adrenergic receptor components with changes in hemodynamic variables. Twenty-three patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association functional classes III and IV) were studied. Patients were grouped as responders (n = 10) or nonresponders (n = 13) on the basis of clinical assessment of functional status from questionnaires. Therapy was associated with an increase in cardiac index, a decrease in mean arterial pressure, and a decrease in systemic vascular resistance in all patients. Left ventricular filling pressure significantly decreased in responders (26 +/- 2 mm to 13 +/- 3 mm, p < 0.05) but did not change significantly in nonresponders. Similarly, mean right atrial pressure significantly decreased in responders (11 +/- 2 mm Hg to 4 +/- 1 mm Hg, p < 0.05) but did not change in nonresponders. Plasma norepinephrine increased significantly only in nonresponders (679 +/- 100 pg/ml to 1233 +/- 201 pg/ml, p < 0.05). Whereas lymphocyte beta-adrenergic receptor density and Gs did not significantly change, Gi increased after treatment only in the nonresponder group (23 +/- 5 to 51 +/- 11 fmol/mg, p < 0.05). A poor response to direct-acting vasodilators can be distinguished by reactive increases in plasma norepinephrine and lymphocyte Gi in the absence of a decrease in either left- or right-sided filling pressures.

Sustained hemodynamic response to flosequinan in patients with heart failure receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the short- and long-term effects of flosequinan in 47 patients with severe heart failure despite ongoing captopril treatment. BACKGROUND: There have been no previous evaluations of the long-term hemodynamic effects of any direct-acting vasodilator in patients with heart failure receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Flosequinan is an arterial and venous vasodilator with actions similar to those of the hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate combination. METHODS: After baseline hemodynamic measurements using balloon-tipped pulmonary artery and radial arterial catheters, patients were randomized to receive 50, 100 or 150 mg of flosequinan daily. Hemodynamic variables were measured immediately before and after short-term flosequinan administration and after 8 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: With short-term flosequinan administration, mean arterial, right atrial and left ventricular filling pressures decreased by 6.4 +/- 1.1, 3.8 +/- 0.5 and 7.3 +/- 0.7 mm Hg, respectively (all p < 0.001). Cardiac index increased by 0.5 +/- 0.1 liters/min per m2, systemic vascular resistance decreased by 616 +/- 105 dynes.s.cm-5 and heart rate increased by 4 +/- 1 beats/min (all p < 0.001). After 8 weeks of long-term flosequinan administration, the vasodilator effect of a dose of flosequinan persisted. Compared with pretreatment baseline values, mean arterial, right atrial and left ventricular filling pressures at the peak effect of flosequinan were decreased by 3.5 +/- 1.3, 2.8 +/- 0.7 and 5.1 +/- 1.3 mm Hg, respectively (all p < 0.01). Systemic vascular resistance had decreased by 585 +/- 95 dynes.s.cm-5, cardiac index had increased by 0.5 +/- 0.1 liters/min per m2 and heart rate had increased by 10 +/- 2 beats/min (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The arterial and venous vasodilator flosequinan exerts both short- and long-term sustained hemodynamic effects in patients with heart failure receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Can further benefit be achieved by adding flosequinan to patients with congestive heart failure who remain symptomatic on diuretic, digoxin, and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor? Results of the flosequinan-ACE inhibitor trial (FACET).

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and digoxin are each effective in treating congestive heart failure, but many patients remain symptom-limited on all three medications. This trial was designed to determine whether the addition of oral flosequinan, a new direct-acting arterial and venous vasodilator with possible dose-dependent positive inotropic effects, improves exercise tolerance and quality of life in such patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a randomized, double-blind multicenter trial, 322 patients with predominantly New York Heart Association class II or III congestive heart failure and left ventricular ejection fractions of 35% or less, who were stabilized on a diuretic, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and digoxin, were treated with 100 mg flosequinan once daily, 75 mg flosequinan twice daily, or matching placebo. Efficacy was evaluated with serial measurements of treadmill exercise time, responses to the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (LWHF), and clinical assessments during a baseline phase and a 16-week treatment period. After 16 weeks, 100 mg flosequinan once daily produced a significant increment in median exercise time (64 seconds at 16 weeks) compared with placebo (5 seconds), whereas the higher-dose flosequinan group did not show a statistically significant increase. Flosequinan (100 mg once daily) also improved the overall LWHF score significantly compared with placebo; both active therapies decreased the physical component, but 75 mg flosequinan twice daily was associated with a trend toward worsening of the emotional component. Most clinical assessments tended to improve on active therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that additional symptomatic benefit can be attained by adding flosequinan to a therapeutic regimen already including a converting enzyme inhibitor. Because in the future most patients will fall into this category, flosequinan is a potential adjunctive agent in the management of severe congestive heart failure. However, because recent evidence indicates that the flosequinan dose studied in the present trial has an adverse effect on survival, the benefit-to-risk ratio must be assessed in individual patients.

Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure. The PROMISE Study Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Milrinone, a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, enhances cardiac contractility by increasing intracellular levels of cyclic AMP, but the long-term effect of this type of positive inotropic agent on the survival of patients with chronic heart failure has not been determined. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1,088 patients with severe chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV) and advanced left ventricular dysfunction to double-blind treatment with (40 mg of oral milrinone daily (561 patients) or placebo (527 patients). In addition, all patients received conventional therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and a converting-enzyme inhibitor throughout the trial. The median period of follow-up was 6.1 months (range, 1 day to 20 months). RESULTS: As compared with placebo, milrinone therapy was associated with a 28 percent increase in mortality from all causes (95 percent confidence interval, 1 to 61 percent; P = 0.038) and a 34 percent increase in cardiovascular mortality (95 percent confidence interval, 6 to 69 percent; P = 0.016). The adverse effect of milrinone was greatest in patients with the most severe symptoms (New York Heart Association class IV), who had a 53 percent increase in mortality (95 percent confidence interval, 13 to 107 percent; P = 0.006). Milrinone did not have a beneficial effect on the survival of any subgroup. Patients treated with milrinone had more hospitalizations (44 vs. 39 percent, P = 0.041), were withdrawn from double-blind therapy more frequently (12.7 vs. 8.7 percent, P = 0.041), and had serious adverse cardiovascular reactions, including hypotension (P = 0.006) and syncope (P = 0.002), more often than the patients given placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that despite its beneficial hemodynamic actions, long-term therapy with oral milrinone increases the morbidity and mortality of patients with severe chronic heart failure. The mechanism by which the drug exerts its deleterious effects is unknown.