Mocha

9/17/2017 Ovid: Congestive Heart Failure/Myocardial Disease: Carvedilol Produces Dose-Related Improvements in Left Ventricular Function and Survival i
Circulation
Issue: Volume 94(11), 1 December 1996, pp 2807-2816
Copyright: 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.
Publication Type: [Clinical Investigation And Reports]
ISSN: 0009-7322
Accession: 00003017-199612010-00023
[Clinical Investigation And Reports]
Congestive Heart Failure/Myocardial Disease: Carvedilol Produces Dose-

Related Improvements in Left Ventricular Function and Survival in Subjects
With Chronic Heart Failure
Bristow, Michael R. MD, PhD; Gilbert, Edward M. MD; Abraham, William T. MD; Adams, Kirkwood F. MD; Fowler, Michael B.
MD; Hershberger, Ray E. MD; Kubo, Spencer H. MD; Narahara, Kenneth A. MD; Ingersoll, Henry MD; Krueger, Steven MD;
Young, Sarah PhD; Shusterman, Neil MD
Author Information
for the MOCHA Investigators.
Received June 10, 1996; revision received September 3, 1996; accepted September 9, 1996.
From the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver (M.R.B., W.T.A.), University of Utah Health
Sciences Center (E.M.G.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (K.F.A.), Stanford University Hospital, Palo
Alto, Calif (M.B.F.), Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland (R.E.H.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
(S.H.K.), University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center (K.A.N.), Sharp-Reese Stealy Medical Clinic, San
Diego, Calif (H.I.), Nebraska Heart Institute, Lincoln (S.K.), and SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, King of
Prussia, Pa (S.Y., N.S.).
Reprint requests to Michael R. Bristow, MD, PhD, Head, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado HSC, 4200 E
9th Ave, B 139, Denver, CO 80262. E-mail michael.bristow@uchsc.edu.
Abstract
Background: We conducted a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial designed to establish the efficacy and safety
of carvedilol, a "third-generation" beta-blocking agent with vasodilator properties, in chronic heart failure.
Methods and Results: Three hundred forty-five subjects with mild to moderate, stable chronic heart failure were
randomized to receive treatment with placebo, 6.25 mg BID carvedilol (low-dose group), 12.5 mg BID carvedilol
(medium-dose group), or 25 mg BID carvedilol (high-dose group). After a 2- to 4-week up-titration period,
subjects remained on study medication for a period of 6 months. The primary efficacy parameter was
submaximal exercise measured by two different techniques, the 6-minute corridor walk test and the 9-minute
self-powered treadmill test. Carvedilol had no detectable effect on submaximal exercise as measured by either
technique. However, carvedilol was associated with dose-related improvements in LV function (by 5, 6, and 8
ejection fraction [EF] units in the low-, medium-, and high-dose carvedilol groups, respectively, compared with 2
EF units with placebo, P < .001 for linear dose response) and survival (respective crude mortality rates of 6.0%,
6.7%, and 1.1% with increasing doses of carvedilol compared with 15.5% in the placebo group, P < .001). When
the three carvedilol groups were combined, the all-cause actuarial mortality risk was lowered by 73% in
carvedilol-treated subjects (P < .001). Carvedilol also lowered the hospitalization rate (by 58% to 64%, P = .01)
and was generally well tolerated.
Conclusions: In subjects with mild to moderate heart failure from systolic dysfunction, carvedilol produced dose-
related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate.
(Circulation. 1996;94:2807-2816.)
http://vv6jn8xn7d.search.serialssolutions.com/OpenURL_local?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:8941106 1/21
Key Words: carvedilol, heart failure, exercise, vasodilation, receptors, adrenergic, beta.
In an attempt to stabilize compromised pump performance, the failing human heart is subjected to increased
adrenergic stimulation. [1-5] Although this compensatory mechanism may initially support and maintain cardiac
output, model systems [6,7] and human studies [8-12] provide considerable evidence that continuous adrenergic
stimulation may be harmful. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that chronic adrenergic stimulation is harmful to
the failing heart derives from experience with beta-adrenergic blocking agents, which consistently improve LV
function in subjects with chronic heart failure [13-22] by reversing intrinsic systolic dysfunction [15,16,20] via a time-
dependent "biological" effect on the myocardium. [23]
Carvedilol is a "third-generation" [24] beta-blocking agent that at therapeutic target doses blocks all three adrenergic
receptors that mediate a positive inotropic response in human cardiac myocytes, with a rank order of potency of
beta1 > alpha1 > beta2. [25] Because of its alpha -blocking properties, [26,27] carvedilol is a moderate vasodilator
on acute administration, [21,28] but with long-term treatment the vasodilator activity is no longer prominent. [17]
However, the vasodilator action of the compound contributes to its relatively good initial tolerability, because, in
contrast to nonvasodilator beta-blockers, [29,30] acute administration of carvedilol does not typically result in
profound myocardial depression and clinically important reductions in cardiac output. [21,28]
One important aspect of investigating drug action is to define both efficacy and adverse event dose-response
characteristics to calculate a therapeutic index and predict a risk: benefit ratio for individual patients. Although
previous single-center smaller trials conducted with a single target dose of 25 to 50 mg BID have indicated that
carvedilol improves LV function and may improve heart failure symptoms and submaximal exercise, [17,18,21] the
influence of dose on these and other important parameters in longer-term follow-up is unknown. For these reasons,
we undertook an evaluation of the dose-response characteristics of carvedilol over a 6-month period of
maintenance treatment in a design that included evaluation of functional capacity (submaximal exercise), LV
function, heart failure symptoms, heart failure morbidity, and survival.
Methods
Protocol Description
The MOCHA trial was a 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter dose-response evaluation of this
third-generation beta-blocking agent in subjects with stable, symptomatic, chronic heart failure. Four treatment
groups were evaluated: placebo, low-dose carvedilol (6.25 mg BID), medium-dose carvedilol (12.5 mg BID), and
high-dose carvedilol (25 mg BID).
The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of three increasing doses of carvedilol with that of
placebo for improvement in submaximal exercise. Two submaximal exercise tests were used: the 6-minute walk test
[31] and the 9-minute self-powered treadmill test. [32] The secondary objectives of this trial were to assess changes
in QOL with the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, [33] changes in NYHA functional class, changes
in EF, need for hospitalization due to heart failure and other cardiovascular causes, and changes in signs and
symptoms of heart failure. The safety assessment included an evaluation of the occurrence of adverse clinical
experiences, changes in laboratory values, deaths, and ECG values in the four treatment arms.
Patients initially underwent a 3-week screening phase, during which time eligibility for the trial was determined,
including a baseline radionuclide LVEF. Qualified patients signed informed written consent, followed by performance
of additional baseline measurements and then institution of a 2-week challenge phase of open-label carvedilol. The
carvedilol challenge consisted of an initial dose of 6.25 mg BID, which could be reduced to 3.125 mg BID if the
patient developed symptoms related to hypotension or worsening heart failure. In patients reduced to 3.125 mg BID,
the challenge dose was increased to 6.25 mg BID in the second week, and successful placement on this dose was
required to establish tolerability. Patients tolerating challenge were then randomized to one of the four treatment
groups. Study medication was increased on a weekly basis in the 12.5-mg BID and 25-mg BID carvedilol groups,
such that at the end of 2 weeks of up-titration all patients would have reached their target or maximally tolerated
dose. All patients were up-titrated in a fashion that maintained the double-blind feature. Patients having difficulty
with up-titration could return to the previous level and had 4 weeks to reach the target dose. After up-titration, a 6-
month maintenance period ensued, during which time patients received placebo or one of the three different doses
of carvedilol and were followed up at frequent intervals by the investigators and study nurses. After 6 months of
maintenance treatment, efficacy tests performed at baseline were repeated. In addition, submaximal exercise tests
and QOL measurements were performed at the end of 2 and 4 months of maintenance treatment, and NYHA
functional class and global assessments were determined on a monthly basis during maintenance treatment.
Entry criteria for this study included male or female patients between 18 and 85 years of age who had an EF less or
equal to 35% and symptomatic heart failure from ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Symptoms had
to be present for at least 3 months, the 6-minute walk test had to be between 150 and 425 m (revised upward to
150 to 450 m by protocol amendment 6 months into the study), and stability was defined as no change in NYHA
class or absence of hospitalization for heart failure during the 1 month before baseline testing. Patients had to be on
stable doses of diuretics for 2 weeks before baseline testing and a stable dose of ACE inhibitor for at least 1 month
before baseline testing. Patients who were intolerant of ACE inhibitors were allowed in the study, but they could not
be rechallenged with an ACE inhibitor during the course of the trial. Digoxin use was optional, but if patients were
taking digoxin, they had to have been started at least 2 months before baseline testing and to have been on a stable
dose for at least 1 month. The use of hydralazine and nitrates was also optional, but if patients were on these
medications they had to have been started at least 2 months before baseline testing and to have been on a stable
dose for at least 1 month. Additional entry criteria included a resting heart rate in the sitting position of greater or
equal to 68 bpm.
Exclusion criteria included the presence of uncorrected valvular disease, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or
postpartum cardiomyopathy. Additional exclusion criteria included documented uncontrolled symptomatic or
sustained ventricular tachycardia. Acute myocardial infarction could not have occurred within 3 months before
screening, and a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or heart
transplant could not be planned or be likely within the 6 months after screening. Other exclusions included the
presence of sick sinus syndrome, second- or third-degree heart block not treated with a pacemaker, symptomatic
peripheral vascular disease limiting exercise testing, a sitting systolic blood pressure of < 85 mm Hg or > 160 mm
Hg, a cerebrovascular accident within the previous 3 months, cor pulmonale, obstructive pulmonary disease
requiring oral bronchodilator or steroid therapy, serum creatinine > 2.5 mg/dL, serum SGOT or SGPT > 3 times the
upper limits of normal, a chronic biliary disorder, limitation of exercise other than that due to heart failure, a systemic
or terminal disease that would limit physical function or survival during the trial, an untreated endocrine disorder
such as hyperthyroidism, brittle insulin-dependent diabetes requiring frequent hospitalizations, an alcohol intake of >
100 g/d, unwillingness to cooperate or give written informed consent, pregnant or lactating women, platelet count <
100 000 mm3 or white blood cell count < 3000 mm3, use of an investigational drug within 30 days of entry into the
challenge phase, and a history of drug sensitivity or adverse reactions to alpha - or beta-blockers. The following
medications were excluded for concomitant use within 2 weeks of baseline testing: monamine oxidase inhibitors,
calcium channel blockers, flosequinan, alpha - or beta-blockers, disopyramide, flecainide, encainide, moricizine,
propafenone, or sotalol. Amiodarone could not have been used within 3 months of baseline testing.*
The 6-minute corridor walk test was conducted as previously described by Guyatt et al. [31] A 9-minute self-
activated treadmill test [32] was performed in a standardized fashion with a Tunturi Jogger II mechanical treadmill
equipped with odometers that were standardized in all centers. Only subjects whose baseline or screening exercise
tests were limited by dyspnea or fatigue were continued in the study. When exercise tests were performed on the
same day, the 6-minute walk test was performed first, and at least a 1-hour rest period was allowed before the
second test. Subjects underwent at least four baseline exercise tests before initial drug challenge: two during the
screening phase to familiarize subjects with the tests and at least two during baseline testing. Results of the fourth
6-minute walk test were used as the baseline value provided that the distance was within +/- 10% of the previous
test. If this was not the case, the subject returned for an additional test and was discontinued from the study if the
distance was not within +/- 10% of the previous test. Whenever a 6-minute walk test was performed, a 9-minute
treadmill test was also obtained.
LVEF was measured by radionuclide ventriculography. Hospitalizations due to heart failure or other cardiovascular
causes were reported prospectively by the investigators, and mortality was classified by the US Carvedilol Heart
Failure Trials Program Steering Committee according to procedures used in the PROMISE [11] and SAVE [34]
trials. A data and safety monitoring board prospectively monitored the serious adverse events, including deaths, in
this and the three other US carvedilol trials that composed the trial program.
Statistical Analysis
On the basis of a review of the literature and preliminary data available from pilot studies, [17,18] it was projected
that a sample size of 300 patients (75 per treatment group) would provide 90% power at the P = .05 level of
significance to detect a dose-response effect for both the 6-minute corridor and 9-minute self-powered treadmill
walk tests. The effect sizes used for the power calculations for the 6-minute corridor walk test were 7 m,14 m. 28 m,
and 56 m for the placebo group and the 6.25-mg-BID, 12.5-mg-BID, and 25-mg-BID carvedilol groups, respectively.
All analyses were by intent to treat; patients who did not tolerate their target dose and were maintained at a lower
dose were analyzed with the treatment group to which they were originally randomized. For submaximal exercise
tests, heart failure global assessments, QOL measurements, and estimates of NYHA functional class, the endpoint
value used was the last available measurement. Per protocol specification, the secondary end point of
hospitalizations for heart failure or other cardiovascular reasons was tabulated during the maintenance period for
patients completing at least 2 months of maintenance. The analysis of deaths was inclusive of the entire up-titration
and maintenance periods.
For the primary efficacy evaluations (change from baseline in distance covered for each of the two walk tests), both
multivariate and univariate ANOVA procedures that included the effects of study center, treatment group, and the
interaction between them were used. The effectiveness of carvedilol was assessed with a two-tailed test for linear
trend, and if it was significant, pairwise comparisons with placebo were performed. In addition, 95% Cls on the
difference between each carvedilol group and the placebo mean change were estimated. Supplemental analyses of
the primary efficacy variables using two-way ANOVA on rank-transformed data were carried out to determine the
effects of early termination or withdrawal from the study. The change from baseline for all continuous secondary and
safety variables was analyzed by use of the same model as for the primary efficacy analysis; categorical variables
were analyzed by contingency table analyses using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure when necessary.
Once these predetermined assessments were completed, patients were stratified for subgroup analyses by baseline
variables that could have influenced outcomes. ANOVA procedures were used to evaluate the significance of drug-
stratification variable interactions. All-cause mortality was tested for linear trend in two ways: (1) by examination of
the linear component of the total chi squared (using the Mantel-Haenszel option) to assess crude rates and (2) by
use of a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with treatment as covariant to assess the linear relationship
among the four treatment groups. Other categorical variables were analyzed as per crude mortality rates by
contingency table analysis. In these categorical analyses, when the linear trend test was significant (P < .05), the
significance of individual carvedilol groups compared with placebo was determined by 2 x 2 contingency table
analysis, without adjustment for multiple groups. Finally, additional analyses of mortality and other important
categorical variables were performed by combining all the carvedilol groups into one active treatment group and
comparing the results with those of the placebo groups. For mortality, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed by use
of a Cox regression model, and crude mortality rates and other categorical variables were compared by contingency
table analysis as described above.
Results
Subject Demographics and Baseline Cardiac and Exercise Function
As can be observed in Table 1, there were no differences in subject descriptors among the four treatment groups.
The majority of subjects were Caucasian men [nearly equal] 60 years old who were evenly divided between NYHA
class II and class III heart failure, who had moderate to severe LV dysfunction with a mean EF of 23%, and who had
moderate impairment of submaximal exercise, with baseline 6-minute walk tests of [nearly equal] 360 m. Table 2
shows the percentages of subjects on digoxin, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors on entry into and during the
maintenance period of the trial, because background treatment could not be altered by adding or dropping these
medications.
Table 1. Subject Demographics and Other Descriptors and Maintenance Doses Achieved (+/- SD)
Table 2. Background Therapy (Percent of Total Subjects) on Entry and Throughout the Trial
Results of Open-Label Challenge

(Figure 1) gives the carvedilol challenge data. Three hundred seventy-six subjects signed informed consent forms
and received a 6.25-mg-BIDX2-week challenge of open-label carvedilol. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, 92% of
subjects tolerated this challenge and were randomized to one of the four groups. As shown in Figure 2, in the
majority of subjects who did not tolerate challenge, this was because of adverse events, primarily symptoms related
to orthostatic hypotension or myocardial depression. One subject died during the 2- to 4-week challenge period.
Figure 1. Study design and overall outcome of the MOCHA trial (dose response of carvedilol in chronic heart failure, protocol
220).
Figure 2. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): results of challenge phase. F/U indicates follow-up.
Target Doses Achieved, Heart Rate, and Blood Pressure Effects
(Table 3) gives the maintenance doses of study medication achieved in the four groups. As can be seen, the
maintenance doses in the three carvedilol groups were similar to the target doses. Heart rate data obtained from the
ventricular rate of ECGs taken at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months of maintenance treatment are also given in
Table 3. There is a reduction in heart rate at all three doses of carvedilol that is minimally dose-related. As shown in
Table 3, systolic and diastolic blood pressures taken in the sitting position were not affected by chronic carvedilol
treatment.
Table 3. Maintenance Doses Achieved, ECG Ventricular Rates, and Blood Pressures During and at End of Maintenance
Therapy (+/- SD)
Median Follow-up, Adverse Events, and Discontinuation From Study Medication

This trial consisted of an initial up-titration period of 2 to 4 weeks, followed by 6 months on maintenance treatment.
The intent-to-treat median values for exposure to study medication were 190, 194, 196, and 196 days on the
placebo, 6.25-mg-BID, 12.5-mg-BID, and 25-mg-BID groups, respectively. A list of adverse events encountered on
study medication is given in Table 4. As can be seen, by linear trend test the only adverse events more prevalent in
carvedilol-treated subjects were dizziness and bradycardia. As shown in Table 5, however, relatively few carvedilol-
treated subjects were withdrawn because of adverse effects-in fact, a lower percentage than in the placebo group. It
can also be observed in Table 5 that the overall discontinuation from the study rate was lower in the carvedilol
groups than in the placebo group.
Table 4. Selected Adverse Experiences
Table 5. Reasons for Subjects Dropping Out After Randomization
Submaximal Exercise
(Figure 3) gives the 6-minute walk results, one of two components of the primary end point. Figure 4 gives the
results of the second component of the primary end point, the 9-minute self-activated treadmill test. As can be seen
in Figure 3 and Figure 4, compared with the placebo group, carvedilol had no effect on either component.
Figure 3. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): 6-minute walk distance (m) at baseline and at end point, by randomized dose,
mean +/- SD.
Figure 4. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): 9-minute self-powered treadmill walk distance (m) at baseline and at end point,
by randomized dose, mean +/- SD.
LV Function
(Figure 5) gives the results on LV function as assessed by radionuclide ventriculography expressed as the change
from baseline in EF units (%) in the four groups. Carvedilol treatment resulted in a dose-related improvement in
LVEF, with each group being statistically significantly different from placebo and the dose response assessed by the
linear-trend test being highly statistically significant (P < .01). The effect of carvedilol was apparent for both ischemic
and nonischemic cardiomyopathies (Figure 6). As Figure 6 shows, there was a tendency for the improvement in LV
function to be more dose-related in the nonischemic group. However, there was no statistically significant difference
between the dose-response relations by the linear-trend test (P = .068).
Figure 5. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): LVEF data at end of 6-month maintenance period as change (Delta) from
baseline values.
Figure 6. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): LVEF data by type of cardiomyopathy. See Figure 5 for further description.
Hospitalizations
(Figure 7 and Table 6) give the cardiovascular hospitalization rate per subject data, obtained as per protocol during
the 2- to 6-month maintenance phase of the trial. As can be seen in Figure 7, carvedilol treatment was associated
with a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization rate that was statistically significant in all individual groups and for
linear trend. As can be observed in Table 6, the reduction in hospitalization rate in the carvedilol groups was not at
the expense of length of hospital stay.
Figure 7. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): cardiovascular hospitalizations: mean number of hospitalizations per subject
during maintenance period (2 to 6 months).
Table 6. Hospitalization Due to Cardiovascular Reasons During Maintenance Phase, by Randomized Dose
Although it was not a protocol-specified end point, we also analyzed total hospitalizations from time of
randomization. As a percentage of the number of patients randomized, the results were 23.8%, 13.2%, 18.0%, and
13.5% in the placebo and three increasing carvedilol doses, respectively (P = .16 by linear trend). The mean
numbers of hospitalizations per patient were 0.37, 0.16, 0.21, and 0.18, respectively (P = .07 by linear trend). The
mean number of hospital days per patient was reduced by carvedilol (3.1, 1.1, 1.5, and 1.3, respectively, P = .01). In
all hospitalization categories, if the carvedilol groups were combined, there was a significant reduction (P < .05) in
favor of carvedilol treatment.
QOL and Global Assessment Measurements

(Table 7) presents the results of the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire, indicating that there are no
significant differences among the four groups in this index expressed as the total score incorporating both physical
and emotional dimensions. [33] There were also no significant changes in the individual components of the
Minnesota Questionnaire (physical dimension, respective mean changes from baseline in the placebo and low-,
medium-, and high-dose carvedilol groups of -3.1, -3.7, -3.2, and -2.0 [P = .360] and emotional dimension, -1.4,
-1.5, -1.3, and -0.5 [P = .25]). Results of patient and physician global assessments are given in Table 8, and for both
types of assessment groups, carvedilol treatment was associated with a trend toward significant improvement.
NYHA functional class ranking was also unaffected by carvedilol (P = .64 for linear trend in improvement, data not
shown).
Table 7. Quality of Life Assessment: Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire, Total Scores by Randomized Dose
Table 8. Global Assessment Measurements
Survival
(Figure 8) gives the crude mortality rate as a percentage of randomized subjects in the four treatment groups. The
placebo-treated group had 13 deaths, for a 15.5% crude mortality over the greater or equal to 6 months of the study.
As can be observed in Figure 8, there was a dose-related, statistically significant reduction in mortality in the
carvedilol-treated groups, with respective mortality rates of 6.0% (log-rank analysis: relative risk, 0.356 with 95% CI
of 0.127 to 0.998, P < .05), 6.7% (relative risk, 0.416 and 95% CI, 0.158 to 1.097, P = .07), and 1.1% (relative risk,
0.067 and 95% CI, 0.009 to 0.512, P < .001) for the carvedilol doses of 6.25 mg BID, 12.5 mg BID, and 25 mg BID,
respectively. As shown in Figure 8, the reduction in mortality by carvedilol was highly statistically significant (P <
.001) by the linear trend test.
Figure 8. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): six-month crude mortality as deaths per randomized patients x 100.
(Figure 9) gives actuarial survival curves for the three carvedilol groups combined and compared with the placebo-
treated group. As can be observed, by log-rank analysis there was a highly statistically significant reduction in
mortality (by 73%; relative risk, 0.272 and CI, 0.124 to 0.597, P < .001) in carvedilol-treated subjects. Moreover, the
reduction in mortality shown in Figure 9 appeared to occur in both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies,
with respective relative risk reductions in the crude mortality rate of 73% and 63% (Table 9). In addition, carvedilol
appeared to favorably affect deaths classified as sudden as well as those due to progressive pump dysfunction, as
shown in Table 9.
Figure 9. Carvedilol protocol 220 (MOCHA): actuarial survival curves for placebo group vs all carvedilol treatment groups
combined.
Table 9. Classification of Deaths: Mortality by Randomized Group, Crude Rates, Intent to Treat
Discussion
In failing human ventricular myocardium, beta-blocking agents produce effects unique among heart failure
medications. Initially, beta-blocking agents depress myocardial function through the pharmacological action of
withdrawal of adrenergic support to the myocardium, but after several months of treatment they improve intrinsic
myocardial function through a time-dependent and as yet undetermined salutary "biological" effect on failing heart
muscle. [23,35] The third-generation beta-blocker/vasodilator carvedilol differs from first-generation compounds
such as propranolol or timolol in that it produces less initial hemodynamic compromise, since on acute dosing,
cardiac output is usually maintained or even slightly increased because of the vasodilator properties of the
compound. [21,28] Indeed, in phase II studies in moderate or severe heart failure, carvedilol was very well tolerated,
[17,18,21] in contrast to propranolol. [36] Carvedilol differs from second-generation, beta1 -selective compounds in
that (1) at higher doses it blocks beta2 - and alpha1 - as well as beta1 -receptors; (2) it reduces cardiac adrenergic
activity [37]; and (3) it prevents beta-receptor upregulation and restoration of beta-adrenergic signal transduction,
[25,37] which typically occurs with metoprolol. [29,37,38] The result is that at target pharmacological doses, such as
those used in phase II heart failure trials, [17,18,21] carvedilol produces a complete and comprehensive
antiadrenergic action in the failing human heart.
In this trial, carvedilol produced a dose-related improvement in LV function as assessed by radionuclide-determined

EF similar to previously reported results with bucindolol. [22] The increase in LVEF by the highest dose (25 mg BID)
of carvedilol was similar to results in three previously reported phase II trials with carvedilol. [17,18,21] The increase
in LVEF occurred in both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies, which is consistent with previous carvedilol
data [17,18,21] and with previous results with the third-generation nonselective beta-blocker bucindolol. [22] In what
appeared to be a mirror-image pattern to the improvement in LV function, carvedilol was associated with a dose-
related reduction in mortality. Moreover, this reduction in mortality appeared to be present in both ischemic and
nonischemic cardiomyopathies and was observed for both sudden and progressive pump dysfunction classifications
of death. This differs from results reported for the second-generation compound bisoprolol, which in the CIBIS trial
[39] did not reduce mortality in the ischemic cardiomyopathy population and did not reduce the incidence of sudden
death. Although in MOCHA the number of deaths was small (a total of 25), the dose-relatedness of the apparent
survival benefit and the robust significance levels (P < .001 both for linear dose response and for the combined
carvedilol groups, relative risk reduction of 73% for the combined carvedilol groups with confidence limits not
including 1.0) support the interpretation that the observed mortality-reducing effect was not due to chance. In
addition, results in the combined US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program indicate a similar, highly statistically
significant reduction in mortality (by 65%) that was consistent across all trials. [40] Although the current results on
mortality reduction by carvedilol exceed the quantitative estimates from the CIBIS (by 21%) [39] and MDC (by 35%
for the combined morbidity-mortality end point) [19] trials, differences in the degree of antiadrenergic action [37] or
important ancillary properties such as antioxidant effects [41] provide a potential pharmacological basis for the
greater efficacy of carvedilol.
The "primary" end point of this study, improvement in submaximal exercise, was not altered by treatment with
carvedilol. This is in contrast to results in two phase II trials, in which, compared with placebo, carvedilol either
improved the 6-minute walk distance [18] or, compared with baseline, improved the duration of sustained
submaximal exercise maintained at a fixed percentage of the workload. [17] The intent was to measure submaximal
exercise by two techniques, in view of the lack of a generally accepted method that can be used to establish
efficacy of heart failure treatment. Unfortunately, information available after the completion of the trial indicates that
the 9-minute self-powered treadmill test, although quite reproducible, measures predominantly maximal rather than
submaximal exercise capacity. [42] In the present study, no positive trends in favor of carvedilol were noted in either
the 6-minute corridor walk or the 9-minute self-powered treadmill test. However, on the basis of the MOCHA trial
data, it can be stated that carvedilol has no adverse effect on submaximal or maximal exercise, which is important
for the use of this type of agent in chronic heart failure. The reason that carvedilol did not improve submaximal
exercise may relate to a true lack of a treatment effect or to methodological difficulties in measuring submaximal
exercise in multicenter trials.
Carvedilol was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization rate by 58% to 64%. This important
index of morbidity, QOL, and pharmacoeconomics was reduced by all three doses of carvedilol. Although the
reduction in hospitalization rate obeyed a dose-response pattern statistically, within the carvedilol-treated groups
there was no obvious relationship between increasing dose and decreasing rate. QOL as assessed by the
Minnesota instrument [33] was not statistically improved by carvedilol at the end of the study. However, there was a
trend toward improvement by carvedilol in the global assessment instrument for both the patient and physician
assessments. On balance, the lack of a measurable effect on improvement in QOL is similar to what was observed
in the bucindolol multicenter trial, in which the same instrument did not detect differences between active drug and
placebo after 12 weeks of treatment. As with carvedilol, [17,18] bucindolol [13,14] had been associated with
improved QOL in smaller single-center studies that used different assessment techniques. It is likely that the
inconsistency in these results is due to difficulties in measuring QOL, the unique effects of beta-blocker therapy in a
heart failure population in which benefit may be variably preceded by drug-related worsening of symptoms and
QOL, or an inherent lack of a favorable QOL effect with this type of treatment. However, the latter would seem
unlikely in view of the aforementioned previous positive QOL results. The most likely explanation may be the
relatively short duration of follow-up. This explanation is supported by QOL data from the MDC trial, in which
metoprolol was associated with an improved QOL at 12 or 18 months.
This trial was not designed to evaluate an efficacy effect on mortality, because in the entire Carvedilol US Trials
program, deaths were being assessed primarily as a safety end point. In addition, the median follow-up of [nearly
equal] 6 months was less than is usually associated with mortality trials. However, it should be noted that the
number of subjects enrolled in the MOCHA trial was 36% greater and the median follow-up was longer than in
CONSENSUS-I, [43] a trial that is widely considered to have unambiguously demonstrated a mortality reduction by
the ACE inhibitor enalapril. Although the CONSENSUS trial had more endpoints (a total of 118 deaths), the present
trial has the advantage of having demonstrated a highly significant dose-related reduction in mortality that correlated
with a progressive reduction in estimated catecholamine beta-receptor occupancy to values that are probably below
or close to the pharmacological thresholds of norepinephrine- or epinephrine-mediated responses. [44]
Finally, the results of this study strongly support the hypothesis [23,35] that the improvement in LV function
observed for beta-blocking agents is associated with improved survival. Unlike that for positive inotropic agents or
vasodilators, improvement in LV function by antiadrenergic treatment is via a time-dependent "biological"
improvement in intrinsic systolic function, [23,35] resulting in a partial reversal of the underlying abnormalities
afflicting the failing human heart. It is perhaps not surprising that such a favorable effect on the intrinsic myocardial
function would be associated with an improvement in the natural history of heart failure, but until now the data
supporting this concept were only suggestive. [19,39] The fact that carvedilol is associated with an apparently
greater effect on survival than are second-generation compounds is also not surprising, in view of the more
complete antiadrenergic properties of carvedilol [25,37] and/or the existence of additional favorable ancillary
properties. [41]
In summary, in this trial carvedilol produced a dose-related reduction in mortality in a chronic heart failure
population. In addition, MOCHA is the first individual clinical trial to demonstrate a mortality benefit with beta-blocker
treatment in chronic heart failure. Although the number of deaths in the trial was small (n = 25), the dose-
relatedness of the findings and the relationship to improved LV systolic function suggests that the observations are
not due to chance. Further clinical trials will be necessary to confirm and extend these findings as well as to position
this treatment into its proper place in the treatment of chronic heart failure.
Appendix
The following investigators (and their performance sites) composed the MOCHA Study Group.
L. Kuo, Albuquerque, NM (Lovelace Scientific Resources); R. Karlsburg, Beverly Hills, Calif; K. Adams, Chapel Hill,
NC (University of North Carolina); E. Eichhorn, Dallas, Tex (Dallas Veterans Administration Medical Center); C.W.
Yancy, Dallas, Tex (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center); M. Bristow, W. Abraham, Denver, Colo
(University of Colorado); J. Young, Houston, Tex (Baylor College of Medicine); S.E. El Hafi, Houston, Tex; G.
Schroth, Houston, Tex (University of Texas Medical School); J. O'Connell, Jackson, Miss (University of Mississippi
Medical Center); A. Miller, Jacksonville, Fla (University of Florida); J.A. Bowers, Las Vegas, Nev (Heart Institute of
Nevada); S. Krueger, Lincoln, Neb (Nebraska Heart Institute); V. De-Quattro, Los Angeles, Calif (University of
Southern California School of Medicine); P.S. Rahko, Madison, Wis (University of Wisconsin); K.B. Ramanathan,
Memphis, Tenn (University of Tennessee, Memphis); E. deMarchena, Miami, Fla (University of Miami); S. Kubo, J.
Cohn, Minneapolis, Minn (University of Minnesota Medical School); U. Thadani, Oklahoma City, Okla (University of
Oklahoma Health Sciences Center); R.P. Sorkin, Park Ridge, Ill (Lutheran General Hospital); J.V. Felicetta, Phoenix,
Ariz (Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center); R. Hershberger, Portland, Ore (Oregon Health Sciences); L.J. Olson,
Rochester, Minn (Mayo Medical School); E.M. Gilbert, Salt Lake City, Utah (University of Utah); L. Yellen, San
Diego, Calif (Cardiology Associates Medical Group of East San Diego, Inc); H. Ingersoll, San Diego, Calif (Sharp
Rees-Stealy Medical Group Center); S. Woodley, San Francisco, Calif (California Pacific Medical Center); B.
Massie, San Francisco, Calif (Veterans Administration Medical Center); M. Fowler, Stanford, Calif (Stanford
University Cardiovascular Medicine); L.W. Miller, S.H. Jennison, St Louis, Mo (St Louis University); A.J. Lonigro, H.
Stratmann, St Louis, Mo (St Louis University Medical Center); K.A. Narahara, Torrance, Calif (Harbor-UCLA Medical
Center); S. Butman, Tucson, Ariz (University Medical Center); F. Kahl, Winston-Salem, NC (Bowman-Gray School
of Medicine).
US Multicenter Carvedilol Trials Program Steering Committee: M.R. Bristow, J.N. Cohn, W.S. Colucci, M.B. Fowler,
E.M. Gilbert, M. Packer. Data and Safety Monitoring Board: A.M. Katz (chair), T. Bashore, C.E. Davis, P. Kowey.
Biostatistics: J. Hosking (University of North Carolina), S.T. Young (SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals). Study
Operations/Monitoring: N.H. Shusterman, M.A. Lukas, A. Flagg, T. Holcslaw, L.G. Parchman (SmithKline Beecham
Pharmaceuticals).
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Mannheim Corp, and NIH grant
R01-HL-48013 awarded to Dr Bristow.
REFERENCES
1. Gaffney TE, Braunwald E. Importance of the adrenergic nervous system in the support of circulatory function in
patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Med. 1963;34:320-324. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links
[Context Link]
2. Bristow MR, Ginsburg R, Minobe WA, Cubicciotti RS, Sageman WS, Lurie K, Billingham ME, Harrison DC,
Stinson EB. Decreased catecholamine sensitivity and beta-adrenergic receptor density in failing human hearts. N
Engl J Med. 1982;307:205-211. [Context Link]
3. Swedberg K, Viquerat C, Rouleau JL, Roizen M, Atherton B, Parmley WW, Chatterjee K. Comparison of
myocardial catecholamine balance in chronic congestive heart failure and in angina pectoris without failure. Am J
Cardiol. 1984;54:783-786. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
4. Hasking GJ, Esler MD, Jennings GL, Burton D, Korner PI. Norepinephrine spillover to plasma in patients with
congestive heart failure: evidence of increased overall and cardiorenal sympathetic nervous activity. Circulation.
1986;73:615-621. Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
5. Bristow MR, Kantrowitz NE, Ginsburg R, Fowler MB. Beta-Adrenergic function in heart muscle disease and heart
failure. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1985;17:41-52. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
6. Mann DL, Kent RL, Parsons B, Cooper G IV. Adrenergic effects on the biology of the adult mammalian
cardiocyte. Circulation. 1992;85:790-804. Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
7. Reichenbach DL, Bendett ED. Catecholamines and cardiomyopathy: the pathogenesis and potential importance
of myofibrillar degeneration. Hum Pathol. 1970;1:125-150. Check Serials Solutions [Context Link]
8. White M, Wiechmann RJ, Roden RL, Hagan MB, Wollmering MM, Port JD, Hammond E, Abraham WT, Wolfel
EE, Lindenfeld J, Fullerton D, Bristow MR. Cardiac beta-adrenergic neuroeffector systems in acute myocardial
dysfunction related to brain injury: evidence for catecholamine-mediated myocardial damage. Circulation.
1995;92:2183-2189. [Context Link]
9. Imperato-McGinley F, Gautier T, Ehlers K, Zullo MA, Goldstein DS, Vaughan ED Jr. Reversibility of
catecholamine-induced dilated cardiomyopathy in a child with a pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:793-
797. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
10. Cohn JN, Levine TB, Olivari MT, Garberg V, Lura D, Francis GS, Simon AB, Rector T. Plasma norepinephrine as
a guide to prognosis in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:819-823. Check
Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
11. Packer M, Carver JR, Rodenheffer RJ, Ivanhoe RJ, DiBlanco R, Zeldis SM, for the PROMISE Study Group.
Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure: the Prospective Randomized Milrinone Survival
Evaluation (PROMISE). N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1468-1475. [Context Link]
12. The Xamoterol in Severe Heart Failure Study Group. Xamoterol in severe heart failure. Lancet. 1990;336:1-6.
[Context Link]
13. Gilbert EM, Anderson JL, Deitchman D, Yanowitz FG, O'Connell JB, Renlund DG, Bartholomew M, Mealy PC,
Larrabee P, Bristow MR. Long-term beta-blocker vasodilator therapy improves cardiac function in idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy: a double-blind, randomized study of bucindolol versus placebo. Am J Med. 1990;88:223-229.
Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
14. Pollock SG, Lystash J, Tedesco C, Craddock G, Smucker ML. Usefulness of bucindolol in congestive heart
failure. Am J Cardiol. 1990;66:603-607. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
15. Eichhorn EJ, Bedotto JB, Malloy CR, Hatfield BA, Deitchman D, Brown M, Willard JE, Grayburn PA. Effect of
beta-adrenergic blockade on myocardial function and energetics in congestive heart failure. Circulation.
1990;82:473-483. [Context Link]
16. Wisenbaugh T, Katz I, Davis J, Essop R, Skoularigis J, Middlemost S, Rothlisberger C, Skudicky D, Sareli P.
Long-term (3-month) effects of a new beta-blocker (nebivolol) on cardiac performance in dilated cardiomyopathy. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:1094-1100. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
17. Olsen SL, Gilbert EM, Renlund DG, Mealey PC, Taylor DO, Yanowitz FD, Bristow MR. Carvedilol improves left
ventricular function and symptoms in heart failure: a double-blind randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol.
1995;25:1225-1231. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
18. Krum H, Sakner-Bernstein JD, Goldsmith RL, Kukin ML, Schwartz B, Penn J, Medina N, Yushak M, Horn E,
Katz SD, Levin HR, Neuberg GW, DeLong G, Packer M. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the long-term
efficacy of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure. Circulation. 1995;92:1499-1506. Ovid Full Text
Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
19. Waagstein F, Bristow MR, Swedberg K, Camerini F, Fowler MB, Johnson M, Silver MA, Gilbert EM, Hjalmarson
A. Beneficial effects of metoprolol in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Lancet. 1993;342:1441-1446. Check
Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
20. Eichhorn EJ, Heesch CM, Barnett JH, Alvarez LG, Fass SM, Grayburn PA, Hatfield BA, Marcoux LG, Malloy
CR. Effect of metoprolol on myocardial function and energetics in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy:
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:1310-1320. Check Serials
Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
21. Metra M, Nardi M, Giubbini R, Dei Cas L. Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and
exercise hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions in patients with idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:1678-1687. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context
Link]
22. Bristow MR, O'Connell JB, Gilbert EM, French WJ, Leatherman G, Kantrowitz NE, Orie J, Smucker M, Marshall
G, Kelly P, Deitchman D, Anderson JL, for the Bucindolol Investigators. Dose-response of chronic beta-blocker
treatment in heart failure from either idiopathic dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1994;89:1632-1642.
Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
23. Bristow MR, Gilbert EM. Improvement in cardiac myocyte function by biologic effects of medical therapy: a new
concept in the treatment of heart failure. Eur Heart J. 1995;16(suppl F):20-31. Check Serials Solutions
24. Bristow MR. Pathophysiologic and pharmacologic rationales for clinical management of chronic heart failure with
beta-blocking agents. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:12C-22C. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context
Link]
25. Yoshikawa T, Port JD, Asano K, Chidiak P, Bouvier M, Dutcher D, Roden RL, Minobe WA, Tremmel RD, Bristow
MR. Cardiac adrenergic receptor effects of carvedilol. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:8-16. Check Serials Solutions
26. Bristow MR, Larrabee P, Minobe W, Roden R, Skerl L, Klein J, Handwerger D, Port JD, Muller-Beckmann B.
Receptor pharmacology of carvedilol in the human heart. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1992;19(suppl 1):S68-S80.
27. Bristow MR, Larrabee P, Muller-Beckmann B, Minobe W, Roden R, Skerl RL, Klein J, Handwerger D. Effects of
carvedilol on adrenergic receptor pharmacology in human ventricular myocardium and lymphocytes. Clin Invest.
1992;70:S105-S113. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
28. Di Lenarda A, Gilbert EM, Olsen SL, Mealey PC, Bristow MR. Acute hemodynamic effects of carvedilol versus
metoprolol in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:142A. Abstract. [Context Link]
29. Waagstein F, Caidahl K, Wallentin I, Bergh C-H, Hjalmarson A. Long-term beta-blockade in dilated
cardiomyopathy: effects of short- and long-term metoprolol treatment followed by withdrawal and readministration of
metoprolol. Circulation. 1989;80:551-563. Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
30. Haber HL, Simek CL, Gimple LW, Bergin JD, Subbiah K, Jayaweera AR, Powers ER, Feldman MD. Why do
patients with congestive heart failure tolerate the initiation of beta-blocker therapy? Circulation. 1993;88:1610-1619.
Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
31. Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, Fallen EL, Pugsley SO, Taylor DW, Berman LB. The 6-minute walk: a
new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132:919-923.
32. Sparrow J, Parameshwar J, Poole-Wilson PA. Assessment of functional capacity in chronic heart failure: time-
limited exercise on a self-powered treadmill. Br Heart J. 1996;71:391-394. [Context Link]
33. Rector TS, Cohn JN. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire:
reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Am Heart J.
1992;124:1017-1025. [Context Link]
34. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moye LA, Basta L, Brown EJ, Cuddy TE, Davis BR, Geltman EM, Goldman S, Flaker
GC, Klein M, Lamas GA, Packer M, Rouleau J, Rouleau JL, Rutherford J, Werthheimer JH, Hawkins CM, on behalf
of the SAVE Investigators. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction
after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:669-677. [Context Link]
35. Eichhorn EE, Bristow MR. Medical therapy can improve the biologic properties of the chronically failing heart: a
new era in the treatment of heart failure. Circulation. 1996;94:2285-2296. Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links
[Context Link]
36. Stephen SA. Unwanted effects of propranolol. Am J Cardiol. 1966;18:463-472. Check Serials Solutions
37. Gilbert EM, Abraham WT, Olsen S, Hattler B, White M, Mealy P, Larrabee P, Bristow MR. Comparative
hemodynamic, LV functional, and anti-adrenergic effects of chronic treatment with metoprolol vs. carvedilol in the
failing heart. Circulation. In press. [Context Link]
38. Heilbrunn SM, Shah P, Bristow MR, Valantine HA, Ginsburg R, Fowler MB. Increased beta-receptor density and
improved hemodynamic response to catecholamine stimulation during long-term metoprolol therapy in heart failure
from dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1989;79:483-490. Ovid Full Text Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
39. CIBIS Investigators. A randomized trial of beta-blockade in heart failure: the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol
Study (CIBIS). CIBIS Investigators and Committees. Circulation. 1994;90:1765-1773. [Context Link]
40. Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, Colucci WS, Fowler MB, Gilbert EM, Shusterman NH. Effect of carvedilol on
morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1349-1355. [Context Link]
41. Yue T-L, Cheng H-Y, Lysko PG, McKenna PJ, Feurstein R, Gu J-L, Lsko KA, Davis LL, Feuerstein G. Carvedilol,
a new vasodilator and beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, is an antioxidant and free radical scavenger. J Pharmacol Exp
Ther. 1992;263:92-98. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
42. Yamani MH, Wells L, Massie BM. Relation of the nine-minute self-powered treadmill test to maximal exercise
capacity and skeletal muscle function in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:788-792.
43. The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure: results
of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med. 1987;316:1429-
1435. Check Serials Solutions Bibliographic Links [Context Link]
44. Bristow MR, Abraham WT, Gilbert EM, Yoshikowa T, Port JD. Relationships between carvedilol stereoisomer
plasma concentrations and beta-receptor occupancies in subjects with chronic heart failure in the MOCHA Trial. Eur
Heart J. 1996;17:135. Abstract. [Context Link]
IMAGE GALLERY
Select All Export Selected to PowerPoint
Table 1 Table 2
Figure 1
Table 3
Figure 2
Table 4
Table 5 Figure 4
Figure 3
Figure 6
Figure 5 Figure 7
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Figure 9
Figure 8
Back to Top
2017 Ovid Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. About Us Contact Us Terms of Use
OvidSP_UI03.26.01.073, SourceID 108757

Mocha

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mocha

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9/17/2017 Ovid: Congestive Heart Failure/Myocardial Disease: Carvedilol Produces Dose-Related Improvements in Left Ventricular Function and Survival i

[Clinical Investigation And Reports]

Congestive Heart Failure/Myocardial Disease: Carvedilol Produces Dose-

Results of Open-Label Challenge

Target Doses Achieved, Heart Rate, and Blood Pressure Effects

Median Follow-up, Adverse Events, and Discontinuation From Study Medication

Table 4. Selected Adverse Experiences

Table 5. Reasons for Subjects Dropping Out After Randomization

QOL and Global Assessment Measurements

Table 8. Global Assessment Measurements

In this trial, carvedilol produced a dose-related improvement in LV function as assessed by radionuclide-determined

Select All Export Selected to PowerPoint

OvidSP_UI03.26.01.073, SourceID 108757

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen