Etiology and response to drug treatment in heart failure

Clinical trials in heart failure (HF) tend to randomize patients according to demographic characteristics and severity of left ventricular dysfunction, without taking account of the precise diagnosis. This article reviews results from recent trials suggesting that the etiology of HF, and particularly whether it is ischemic or nonischemic, may influence the long-term prognosis and the response to treatment. Some studies, but not all, suggest that nonischemic HF has a better prognosis than ischemic HF, The data on the benefits of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in ischemic versus nonischemic HF are conflicting, Carvedilol, and recently, bisoprolol have been shown to reduce mortality in ischemic and non-ischemic HF, whereas metoprolol has, to date, improved prognosis only in dilated cardiomyopathy. Better responses to digoxin, amlodipine and amiodarone have been reported in non-ischemic HF. There is at present no clear explanation for the apparent therapeutic differences between ischemic and nonischemic HF, Absence of a rigorous definition of "nonischemic HF" in many studies makes interpretation of the results difficult. Further studies to clarify the effects of etiology of HF" on the response to treatment could be particularly important for preventing progression to more advanced stages, in which any type of drug therapy may have limited value in prolonging survival. An individualized therapeutic approach, based on etiology of HF and possibly other factors such as plasma drug levels or the levels of neurohormones, could result in major progress in treating HF patients. (C) 1998 by the American College of Cardiology.