BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Although prednisone has been used to treat patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, its efficacy has not been rigorously studied. We therefore randomly assigned 102 patients to either treatment with prednisone (60 mg per day) or a control group. At three months, improvement, defined prospectively as an increase in the ejection fraction of greater than or equal to 5 percentage points, was observed in 53 percent of the patients receiving prednisone and 27 percent of the controls (P = 0.005). The mean (+/- SE) ejection fraction increased 4.3 +/- 1.5 percentage points (from 17.9 +/- 1.0 to 22.2 +/- 1.6 percent) in the prednisone group, as compared with 2.1 +/- 0.8 percentage points (from 17.1 +/- 1.1 to 19.3 +/- 1.4 percent) in the control group (P = 0.054). All patients were categorized prospectively in two separately randomized subgroups. "Reactive" patients (n = 60) were those who had fibroblastic (n = 36) or lymphocytic (n = 2) infiltration or immunoglobulin deposition (n = 16) on endomyocardial biopsy, a positive gallium scan (n = 7), or an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (n = 18). "Nonreactive" patients (n = 42) had none of these features. At three months, 67 percent of the reactive patients who received prednisone had improvement, as compared with 28 percent of the reactive controls (P = 0.004). Nonreactive patients did not improve significantly with prednisone (P = 0.51). After three months, reactive patients who received prednisone daily were switched to alternate-day therapy (60 mg every other day), and after six months the improvement seen earlier was no longer present. These data suggest that patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy may have some improvement when given a high dose of prednisone daily. However, the increases in the ejection fraction that we observed during prednisone treatment were small, their duration was limited, and the side effects were important. Overall, prednisone was judged to have only marginal clinical benefit, and should not be administered as standard therapy for dilated cardiomyopathy.

Background-Inhibition of leukocyte adhesion can reduce myocardial infarct size in animals. This study was designed to define the safety and efficacy of a recombinant, humanized, monoclonal antibody to the CD18 subunit of the ␤2 integrin adhesion receptors (rhuMAb CD18), in reducing infarct size in patients treated with a thrombolytic agent. Methods and Results-The Limitation of Myocardial Infarction following Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial InfarctionStudy (LIMIT AMI) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study conducted in 60 centers in the United States and Canada. A total of 394 subjects who presented within 12 hours of symptom onset with ECG findings (ST-segment elevation) consistent with AMI were treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and were also given an intravenous bolus of 0.5 or 2.0 mg/kg rhuMAb CD18 or placebo. Coronary angiography was performed at 90 minutes, 12-lead ECGs were obtained at baseline, 90, and 180 minutes, and resting sestamibi scans were performed at Ն120 hours. Adjunctive angioplasty and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antiplatelet agents at the time of angiography were discretionary. There were no treatment effects on coronary blood flow, infarct size, or the rate of ECG ST-segment elevation resolution, despite the expected induction of peripheral leukocytosis. A slight trend toward an increase in bacterial infections was observed with rhuMAb CD18 (Pϭ0.33). Conclusions-RhuMAb CD18 was well tolerated but not effective in modifying cardiac end points. (Circulation. 2001;