Ranolazine is able to improve CFR in these patients. This is probably due to improvement in abnormal coronary autoregulation, both reducing baseline diastolic coronary flow velocity and increasing hyperemic diastolic coronary flow velocity.

BackgroundThe independent prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes mellitus (pre‐DM) on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure has been investigated in observational registries and randomized, clinical trials, but the results have been often inconclusive or conflicting. We examined the independent prognostic impact of DM and pre‐DM on survival outcomes in the GISSI‐HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca‐Heart Failure) trial.Methods and ResultsWe assessed the risk of all‐cause death and the composite of all‐cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization over a median follow‐up period of 3.9 years among the 6935 chronic heart failure participants of the GISSI‐HF trial, who were stratified by presence of DM (n=2852), pre‐DM (n=2013), and non‐DM (n=2070) at baseline. Compared with non‐DM patients, those with DM had remarkably higher incidence rates of all‐cause death (34.5% versus 24.6%) and the composite end point (63.6% versus 54.7%). Conversely, both event rates were similar between non‐DM patients and those with pre‐DM. Cox regression analysis showed that DM, but not pre‐DM, was associated with an increased risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28–1.60) and of the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13–1.32), independently of established risk factors. In the DM subgroup, higher hemoglobin A1c was also independently associated with increased risk of both study outcomes (all‐cause death: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02–1.43; and composite end point: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29, respectively).ConclusionsPresence of DM was independently associated with poor long‐term survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336336.

IntroductionCoronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) is an important prognostic marker in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Beta-blockers and ivabradine have been shown to improve CFVR in patients with stable CAD, but their effects were never compared. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of bisoprolol and ivabradine on CFVR in patients with stable CAD.MethodsPatients in sinus rhythm with stable CAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients had to be in a stable condition for at least 15 days before enrollment, on their usual therapy. Patients who were receiving beta-blockers or ivabradine entered a 2-week washout period from these drugs before randomization. Transthoracic Doppler-derived CFVR was assessed in left anterior descending coronary artery, and was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline diastolic coronary flow velocity (CFV). Hyperemic CFV was obtained using dipyridamole administration using standard protocols. After CFVR assessment, patients were randomized to ivabradine or bisoprolol and entered an up-titration phase, and CFVR was assessed again 1 month after the end of the up-titration phase.ResultsFifty-nine patients (38 male, 21 female; mean age 69 ± 9 years) were enrolled. Transthoracic Doppler-derived assessment of CFV and CFVR was successfully performed in all patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the bisoprolol and ivabradine groups. No patient dropped out during the study. At baseline, rest and hyperemic peak CFV as well as CFVR was not significantly different in the ivabradine and bisoprolol groups. After the therapy, resting peak CFV significantly decreased in both the ivabradine and bisoprolol groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups (ivabradine group 20.7 ± 4.6 vs. 22.8 ± 5.2, P < 0.001; bisoprolol group 20.1 ± 4.1 vs. 22.1 ± 4.3, P < 0.001). However, hyperemic peak CFV significantly increased in both groups, but to a greater extent in patients treated with ivabradine (ivabradine: 70.7 ± 9.4 vs. 58.8 ± 9.2, P < 0.001; bisoprolol: 65 ± 8.3 vs. 58.7 ± 8.2, P < 0.001). Accordingly, CFVR significantly increased in both groups (ivabradine 3.52 ± 0.64 vs. 2.67 ± 0.55, P < 0.001; bisoprolol 3.35 ± 0.70 vs. 2.72 ± 0.55, P < 0.001), but it was significantly higher in ivabradine group, despite a similar decrease in heart rate (63 ± 7 vs. 61 ± 6; P not significant).ConclusionIvabradine improves hyperemic peak CFV and CFVR to a greater extent than bisoprolol in patients with stable CAD, despite a similar decrease in heart rate. These data demonstrate that the benefits from ivabradine therapy go beyond the heart rate. This could be due to a different mechanism such as diastolic perfusion time, isovolumic ventricular relaxation, end-diastolic pressure, and collaterals.FundingServier.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0237-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background In contrast with the setting of acute myocardial infarction, there are limited data regarding the impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes in contemporary cohorts of patients with chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of diabetes according to geographical regions and ethnicity. Methods and results CLARIFY is an observational registry of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, enrolled across 45 countries in Europe, Asia, America, Middle East, Australia, and Africa in 2009–2010, and followed up yearly for 5 years. Chronic coronary syndromes were defined by ≥1 of the following criteria: prior myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary stenosis &gt;50%, proven symptomatic myocardial ischaemia, or prior revascularization procedure. Among 32 694 patients, 9502 (29%) had diabetes, with a regional prevalence ranging from below 20% in Northern Europe to ∼60% in the Gulf countries. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, diabetes was associated with increased risks for the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.18, 1.39) and for all secondary outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and coronary revascularization). Differences on outcomes according to geography and ethnicity were modest. Conclusion In patients with chronic coronary syndromes, diabetes is independently associated with mortality and cardiovascular events, including heart failure, which is not accounted by demographics, prior medical history, left ventricular ejection fraction, or use of secondary prevention medication. This is observed across multiple geographic regions and ethnicities, despite marked disparities in the prevalence of diabetes. ClinicalTrials identifier ISRCTN43070564