| aldactone versus furosemide | |||
| Bednarz, 2000 | Aldactone 200 mg i.v versus furosemide 20 mg i.v | patients with NYHA class III to IV congestive heart failure | open |
| Aliskiren versus placebo | |||
| ASTRONAUT, 2013 NCT00894387 | Aliskiren versus placebo | stable patients with heart failure, an LVEF <40% (mean 28%), and elevated natriuretic peptides who had been discharged from a heart-failure hospitalization an average of five days before | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months North and South america, Europe, Asia |
| amiloride versus placebo | |||
| Cheitlin, 1991 | amiloride versus placebo | men with a history of congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| amiodarone versus ICD | |||
| AMIOVIRT, 2003 | amiodarones versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorag | patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and left ventricular ejection fraction <=0.35 | Follow-up duration: 2 y US |
| amiodarone versus no treatment | |||
| GESICA, 1994 | amiodarone 300 mg/day versus no treatment | patients with severe heart failure Any two of CTR >0·55, LVEF<=35%, echo LVED >3·2 cm/m2 | open Follow-up duration: 1·10 years |
| EPAMSA, 1985 | amiodarone 400 mg/day versus no treatment | patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ( < 35%) and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias (Lown classes 2 and 4) LVEF <=35% and Lown class 2–5 | open Follow-up duration: 0·81 years |
| amiodarone versus placebo | |||
| Nicklas, 1991 | amiodarone 200 mg/day versus placebo | patients with ejection fractions less than 30%, New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms, and frequent but asymptomatic spontaneous ventricular ectopy (Lown class II to V) LVEF <=30% and Lown class 2–5 | double blind Follow-up duration: NA |
| Hamer, 1989 | amiodarone 200 mg/day versus placebo | patients with severe congestive heart failure but no sustained ventricular arrhythmia | double blind Follow-up duration: 1·63 years |
| STATCHF, 1995 | amiodarone 200 mg/day versus placebo | patients with symptoms of congestive heart failure, cardiac enlargement, 10 or more premature ventricular contractions per hour, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less LVEF <=40% and >=10 VPD/h and LVED >=55 mm or CTR >0·55 | double blind Follow-up duration: 2·15 years |
| amlodipine versus control | |||
| Packer, 1991 | amlodipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class II-III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 months |
| Smith, 1994 | amlodipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class II-III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Binkley, 1996 | amlodipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class II-III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Udelson, 1996 | amlodipine versus | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease, NYHA class II-III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Ghali, 1997 | amlodipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class III-IV | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| amlodipine versus placebo | |||
| PRAISE, 1996 | amlodipine 10 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with severe chronic heart failure and ejection fractions of less than 30 percent appl | Double blind Follow-up duration: median 13.8 mo (range 6-33 mo) US |
| Amlodipine versus placebo | |||
| PRAISE II , 2000 | Amlodipine versus placebo | heart failure in non ischemic cardiomyopathy | Follow-up duration: up to 4 years |
| Amrinone versus placebo | |||
| AMTG, 1985 | Amrinone <600mg/day versus placebo | patients with heart failure NYHA III/IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| aspirin versus no treatment | |||
| WASH (aspirin), 2004 | aspirin 300 mg/day versus no treatment | patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring diuretic therapy with LVEF<=35% | open Follow-up duration: 27 months UK, US |
| aspirin versus placebo | |||
| Barzizza (ASA), 1993 | aspirin 300mg versus placebo | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and evidence of intraventricular thrombi | NA Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| atorvastatin versus control | |||
| Wojnicz, 2006 | atorvastatin 40 mg/day versus conventional treatment for heart failure | patients with inflammatory dilated cardiomyopathy (DC) (positive immunohistochemistry results on endomyocardial biopsy) | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Yamada, 2007 | atorvastatin 10 mg/d versus standard treatment | outpatients with mild to moderate CHF and radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% | Follow-up duration: mean 2.58y |
| atorvastatin versus placebo | |||
| Strey, 2005 | atorvastatin 40mg versus placebo | patients with stable, symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association Class II or III) and a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% | Follow-up duration: 6 weeks |
| Sola, 2006 | atorvastatin 20 mg/day versus placebo | patients with nonischemic HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <=35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 1y |
| benazepril versus control | |||
| McGany, 1991 | versus | ||
| benazepril versus placebo | |||
| Colfer, 1992 | benazepriltitrated up to 20mg daily versus placebo | Patients with chronic New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms of CHF and an ejection fraction by radionuclide scanning of less than or equal to 35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 12-week US |
| beta-erythropoietin versus placebo | |||
| Palazzuoli, 2006 | s.c. beta-EPO for 3 months twice weekly and oral iron versus placebo + oral iron | patients with anemia and resistant CHF | double blind |
| Bisoprolol versus placebo | |||
| CIBIS II (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bisoprolol versus placebo | Patients aged 71 years and older | |
| bisoprolol versus placebo | |||
| CIBIS, 1994 | bisoprolol 5mg/d versus placebo | stable chronic idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy heart failure NYHA 3-4, EF<40% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.9 years (range 4-44 mo) 9 european countries |
| CIBIS II, 1999 | Bisoprolol target dose 10mg/daily versus control | chronic herat failure, ejection fraction<=35%, NYHA 3-4 | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.3 years western and eastern europe |
| BNP-guided management versus control | |||
| TIME CHF, 2009 | intensive BNP-guided therapy versus standard symptom-guided therapy | patients with heart failure, with the specific inclusion of patients ¡Ý75 years of age | open |
| PRIMA, 0 | NT-proBNP guided management versus clinically guided management | Patients admitted for worsening heart failure and with NT-proBNP decreasing during their admission | open Follow-up duration: 702 days the Netherlands |
| PROTECT, 2009 NCT00351390 | natriuretic-peptide-guided therapy versus standard management | patients with NYHA class 2-4 heart failure, LVEF <40%, and history of at least one admission or outpatient diuretic dose increase for heart-failure destabilization in the previous six months | |
| STARS-BNP, 2007 | BNP-guidance as a supplement to clinical judgment versus traditional approach | patients in NYHA functional class 2-3 with an LVEF <45%; optimally treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta-blockers, and diuretics by CHF specialists | open Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| BATTLESCARRED, 2009 ANZCTR12605000735651 | drug treatment directed by plasma NTproBNP for 2 years versus usual care | patients admitted to hospital for HF | open Follow-up duration: 3y New Zealand |
| STARBRITE, 2007 NCT00484770 | BNP-guided treatment versus clinically based management | patients in NYHA class 3-4 and with an LVEF <35%; enrolled prior to discharge following hospitalization for acute decompensation | open Follow-up duration: 3 mo |
| Troughton, 2000 | BNP-guided treatment versus empirical trial-based therapy dictated by clinical acumen61Ø7Ow | patients with impaired systolic function (leftventricular ejection fraction <40%) and symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II–IV); treated with ACE inhibitors, loop diuretic with or without digoxin | open Follow-up duration: 9.5 mo (>6 mo) UK |
| Bone marrow derived stem cell versus control | |||
| CUPID 2b, 2016 NCT01643330 | Intracoronary Administration of MYDICAR® (AAV1/SERCA2a) (Genetically Targeted Enzyme Replacement Therapy) versus | patients with advanced heart failure | |
| FOCUS-CCTRN, 2012 NCT00824005 | autologous bone-marrow-cell therapy versus | patients with chronic ischemic heart failure | |
| Pokushalov (DOUBLON DIB), 2010 | Intramyocardial transplantation of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells versus optimal medical therapy | patients with severe ischemic heart failure | Russia |
| Bone marrow derived stem cell versus placebo | |||
| ABCD, 2010 | intracoronary stem cell
implantation (Autologous Bone Marrow Cells) versus | Patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| INCL, 2015 NCT00333827 | bone marrow derived stem cell versus placebo | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure in NYHA class III or IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Brazil |
| Bone marrow mononuclear cells versus control | |||
| Ang, 2008 | transplantation of autologous bone marrow cells versus | Elective CABG patients with established myocardial scars diagnosed as akinetic or dyskinetic segments by dobutamine stress echocardiography and confirmed at surgery | single-blinded |
| Hendrikx, 2006 | intramyocardial injection of autologous mononuclear bone marrow cells during coronary artery bypass graft versus | patients with a postinfarction nonviable scar | Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| TOPCARE-CHD, 2006 NCT00289822 | intracoronary transplantation of progenitor cells derived from bone marrow (BMC) or circulating blood versus | patients with stable ischemic heart disease who had had a myocardial infarction at least 3 months previously | |
| Yao, 2008 | intracoronary bone marrow mononuclear cells versus | patients with stable ischaemic heart disease due to a previous MI | |
| Bone marrow mononuclear cells versus placebo | |||
| FOCUS-HF, 2011 NCT00203203. | versus Mock injection | patients with chronic HF | Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| Bone marrow progenitor cells versus control | |||
| Manginas, 2007 | intracoronary administration of selected CD133(+) and CD133(-)CD34(+) progenitor cells versus | patients with old, nonviable anterior myocardial infarction | |
| Patel, 2005 | adult autologous stem cell transplantation (CD34+) versus | patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ejection fraction of less than 35% who were scheduled for primary off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting | |
| Perin, 2012 | transendocardial injection of autologous aldehyde dehydrogenase-bright stem cells versus | patients with advanced ischemic heart failure | Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Vrtovec, 2011 NCT00629018 | intracoronary transplantation of CD34+ cells versus | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| Vrtovec, 2013 NCT01350310 | intracoronary CD34+ cell transplantation versus | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| Bucindolol versus placebo | |||
| Pollock, 1990 | bucindolol target dose 100mg twice daily versus placebo | Patienst with stable, chronic heart failure with a dilated cardiomyopathy due to ischemic or isopathic causes | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months US |
| Woodley, 1991 | bucindolol versus placebo | NYHA 2-3, IDC/CAD | Follow-up duration: 3 mo |
| MERIT-HF (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bucindolol versus placebo | Patients aged 65 years and olderwith chronic heart failure in NYHA functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy | |
| Bristow, 1994 | bucindolol versus placebo | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Follow-up duration: 3 mo |
| bucindolol versus placebo | |||
| BEST, 2001 NCT00000560 | bucindolol titrated to 50mg txice daily versus placebo | patients with heart failure NYHA class III or IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 percent or lower | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 years US, Canada |
| candesartan versus enalapril | |||
| RESOLVD (candesartan alone), 1999 | Candesartan, 4 mg, 8mg, 16mg daily versus Enalapril, 10 mg twice daily | Patients with New York Heart Association functional class NYHA II, III, or IV CHF, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) >500 m, and ejection fraction (EF) <0.40 | Double blind Follow-up duration: 43 wk US, Canada, Europe, Brazil |
| candesartan versus placebo | |||
| ARCH-J, 2003 | Candesartan, 8 mg daily versus Placebo | patients with chronic heart failure who were not receiving ACE inhibitor therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 155 d |
| CHARM-Alternative, 2003 | candesartan (target dose32 mg once daily) versus Placebo | patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were notreceiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance | double blind Follow-up duration: Median, 33.7 mo 26 countries |
| CHARM preserved, 2003 | candesartan target dose 32 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure and LVEF higher than 40% | double blind Follow-up duration: 36.6 months 26 countries |
| Mitrovic et al., 2003 | Candesartan, 2 mg, 4mg, 8mg, 16mg daily versus Placebo | patients with CHF (New York Heart Association class II or III) with impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction <=40%) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure >=13 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk Europe, South Africa |
| SPICE, 2000 | Candesartan, 16 mg daily versus Placebo | patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, and history of discontinuing an ACE inhibitor because of intolerance | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk |
| STRETCH, 1999 | Candesartan, 4 mg, 8mg, 16mg daily versus Placebo | Male and female patients 21 to 80 years of age with mild to moderate symptomatic CHF (NYHA class II or III) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk Germany, Czech Republic, Slovenia. |
| candesartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only | |||
| RESOLVD association, 1999 | Candesartan, 4 mg, 8mg daily, plus enalapril, 10 mg twice daily versus Enalapril, 10 mg twice daily | Patients with New York Heart Association functional class NYHA II, III, or IV CHF, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) >500 m, and ejection fraction (EF) <0.40 | Follow-up duration: 43 wk multicenter |
| CHARM-Added, 2003 | Candesartantarget dose 32 mg once daily versus Placebo | patients with New York Heart Association functional class II–IV CHF and left-ventricular ejection fraction40% or lower, and who were being treated with ACE inhibitors. | double blind Follow-up duration: Median, 41 mo 26 countries |
| captopril versus enalapril | |||
| packer, 1986 | captopril 150 mg/d versus enalapril 40mg/d | patient with severe chronic heart failure | open Follow-up duration: 1-3 months |
| captopril versus placebo | |||
| SAVE, 1992 | Captopril 12·5 mg initial dose, up to 25–50 mg three times daily versus placebo | patient within 3–16 days of a MI, LVEF <40% | double blind Follow-up duration: 3.5y |
| Barabino, 1991 | captopril (37.5-75 mg/day) versus placebo | old patients (>75y) under treatment with digitalis and/or diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Pfeffer, 1988 | Captopril versus placebo | patient within 11-31 days after MI, LVEF<=45%, not in overt congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| Bussmann, 1987 | captopril versus placebo | patients with severe heart failure (NYHA classes III and IV) on treatment with digitalis and diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Sogaard, 1994 | Captopril 50mg daily versus placebo | patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction on day 7 after MI | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Captopril Digoxin Multicenter Research Group, 1988 | captopril versus placebo | patients with mild to moderate heart failure | double blind |
| Sharpe, 1988 | Captopril 25 mg thrice a day versus placebo | patients with symptomless left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF<45%) 1 week after a myocardial infarction without clinical evidence of heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| Mortarino, 1990 | Captopril 25 mg bid versus placebo | patient with mild congestive heart failure after recent MI | double blind Follow-up duration: 2 months |
| Cilazapril-Captopril Multi-centre Group (capt vs pbo), 1995 | cilazapril 1-2.5 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II-IV) | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| CMRG, 1983 | captopril versus placebo | patients with heart failure refractory to digitalis and diuretic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Magnani, 1986 | captopril 25 mg t.i.d. versus placebo | patients on digitalis treatment for chronic congestive heart failure (NYHA class II-III) | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| Magnani, 1990 | captopril versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure | double blind |
| Munich MHFT (Kleber), 1992 | captopril 25 mg twice a day versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I-III on standard treatment | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2.7y (median) Germany |
| Cardiac stem cells versus control | |||
| SCIPIO, 2011 NCT00474461 | Intracoronary Injection of Cardiac Stem Cells Harvested From Right Atrial Appendages versus | Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy | |
| Cardiopoietic stem cell versus control | |||
| C CURE, 2013 NCT00810238 | autologous bone marrow-derived and cardiogenically oriented mesenchymal stem cell therapy versus | patients with heart failure of ischemic origin | |
| CADUCEUS, 2012 NCT00893360 | versus | patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction | |
| carvedilol versus enalapril | |||
| CARMEN (carvedilol alone), 2004 | carvedilol (target 25 mg bid) versus enalapril (target 10 mg bid) | patients with mild heart failure | ND Follow-up duration: 18 months |
| carvedilol versus metoprolol | |||
| COMET, 2003 | carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) versus metoprolol tartrate target dose 50 mg twice daily | chronic heart failure (NYHA II–IV) with a previous admission for a cardiovascular reason and ejection fraction of less than 0·35, and have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.83 years 15 European countries |
| carvedilol versus placebo | |||
| ANZ-HeFT, 1997 | carvedilol target dose 25mg twice daily versus placebo | chronic stable heart failure, NYHA 1-3 | Double blind Follow-up duration: 19 mo (range 18-24 mo) Australia & New Zealand |
| Parker, 1996 | carvediloltarget dose 25 mg twice daily versus placebo | patients with heart failure and ejection fraction<0.35 | Double blind Follow-up duration: 6.5 mo (1 day - 15.1 mo) US |
| Carvedilol versus placebo | |||
| Carvedilol U.S. Trials (elderly subgroup), 1996 | Carvedilol versus placebo | Patients aged 65 years and older | |
| COPERNICUS (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Carvedilol versus placebo | Patients aged 59 years and older | |
| carvedilol versus placebo | |||
| Metra, 1994 | carvedilol versus placebo | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Follow-up duration: 4 mo |
| Olsen, 1995 | carvedilol versus placebo | NYHA 2-4, IDC/CAD | Follow-up duration: 4 mo |
| Krum, 1995 | carvedilol 25 mg twice daily during 14 weeks versus placebo | Patients with advanced heart failure(NYHA 3-4), EF <=0.35 | Follow-up duration: 3.5 mo |
| Bristow (MOCHA), 1996 | carvedilol versus placebo | NYHA 2-4, IDC/CAD | Double blind Follow-up duration: 6.5-8 mo |
| Colucci, 1996 | carvedilol versus placebo | mild symptomatic heart failure; ejection fraction<=0.35; 6-minute walk test of 450-550m; on optimal standard therapy including ACE inhibitors | Double blind Follow-up duration: 213 days (0.6 years) US |
| Cohn, 1997 | carvedilol versus placebo | NYHA 3-4, IDC/CAD | Follow-up duration: <8 mo |
| CAPRICORN, 2001 | carvedilol target dose 25mg twice daily versus placebo | proven acute myocardial infarction and a left-ventricular ejection fraction of <=40% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.3 years 17 countries |
| COPERNICUS, 2002 | carvedilol traget dose of 25 mg twice daily versus placebo | patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion and with an ejection fraction <25% (but not volume-overloaded) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 10.4 months worldwide (21 countries) |
| Celacade™ system versus placebo | |||
| ACCLAIM, 2008 NCT00111969 | device-based non-specific immunomodulation therapy with Celacade™ system versus placebo | patients with NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, and hospitalisation for heart failure or intravenous drug therapy in an outpatient setting within the past 12 months. | double blind Follow-up duration: 10.2 months |
| cerivastatin versus placebo | |||
| Laufs, 2004 | cerivastatin 0.4 mg versus placebo | patients with heart failure NYHA II-III caused by non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy | double blind Follow-up duration: mean 20 weeks |
| cilazapril versus captopril | |||
| Cilazapril-Captopril Multi-centre Group (cila vs capt), 1995 | cilazapril 1-2.5 mg once daily versus captopril 25-50mg three times daily | patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II-IV) | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| cilazapril versus placebo | |||
| Cilazapril-Captopril Multi-centre Group, 1995 | cilazapril 1-2.5 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II-IV) | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Dosseger, 1993 | cilazapril titrated up to 2.5 mg/d versus placebo | patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA class II to IV) stabilized on digitalis and/or diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Drexler, 1989 | cilazapril versus placebo | patients with chronic heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Combined CRT + ICD versus CRT | |||
| COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs CRT), 2004 | ICD+CRT
versus CRT | patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms | open Follow-up duration: 16 months |
| Combined CRT + ICD versus ICD alone | |||
| MIRACLE-ICD-II, 2004 | ICD+CRT (and optimalmedical treatment) versus ICD (optimalmedical treatment) | NYHA class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=35%, a QRS >=130 ms, and a class I indication for an ICD | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| MADIT CRT, 2009 NCT00180271 | Cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator alone | patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic heart failure (NYHA I/II), LEVF<=30% and QRS>=130ms | blinded Follow-up duration: 2 years United States, Europe |
| RAFT, 2010 NCT00251251 | ICD plus CRT versus ICD alone | patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more | double-blind Follow-up duration: 40 months Canada, Europe, Turkey, Australia |
| MIRACLE-ICD-I, 2003 | ICD+CRT (plus optimal medical treatment) versus ICD (plus optimal medical treatment) | patients with NYHA class III or IV congestive HF despite appropriate medical management | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| CONTAK-CD , 2003 | ICD+CRT versus ICD (no CRT) | patients with symptomatic heart failure, intraventricular conduction delay, and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias | open Follow-up duration: 4.7 months |
| Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT | |||
| RethinQ, 2007 NCT00132977 | cardiac-resynchronization therapy ICD+CRT versus no cardiac-resynchronization therapy | patients with standard indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, NYHA 3, EF<35%, QRS<130ms, and evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony | open Follow-up duration: 6 months USA |
| Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT no ICD | |||
| AMIOVIRT, 2003 | ICD versus amiodarone as medical therapy | patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia | open Follow-up duration: 24 months |
| COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs MT), 2004 | ICD+CRT
versus no ICT no CRT, optimized medical therapy | patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms | open Follow-up duration: 16 months |
| continuous-flow HeartMate II versus pulsatile-flow HeartMate XVE | |||
| HeartMate II, 2009 NCT00121485 | continuous-flow HeartMate II ventricular assist device versus pulsatile-flow HeartMate XVE ventricular assist device | patients with advanced heart failure not eligible for heart transplantation | open Follow-up duration: 2 y |
| CRT versus no CRT | |||
| REVERSE, 2008 NCT00271154). | CRT versus "placebo" | patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with a QRS >=120 ms and a LV ejection fraction <=40% | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| MUSTIC-SR, 2001 | CRT Medtronic/ELA medical versus CRT off | patients with severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III) due to chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with normal sinus rhythm and a duration of the QRS interval of more than 150 msec | Single blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| MIRACLE, 2002 | CRT Medtronic versus CRT off | patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of heart failure associated with an ejection fraction of 35 percent or less and a QRS interval of 130 msec | Bouble blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| PATH-CHF, 2002 | CRT versus no CRT | patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay | open Follow-up duration: 1 month |
| MUSTIC AF, 2002 | CRT Medtronic/ELA medical versus CRT off | patients with NYHA class III left ventricular systolic dysfunction, chronic atrial fibrillation, slow ventricular rate necessitating permanent ventricular pacing, and a wide QRS complex (paced width >or=200 ms) | Single blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| CARE-HF, 2005 | CRT medtronic versus no CRT | patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony | open Follow-up duration: 29.4 months |
| RD-CHF, 2003 | CRT versus no CRT | patients with advanced heart failure | |
| COMPANION (CRT vs MT), 2004 | CRT guidant versus no CRT, optimized medical therapy | patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=35% and QRS duration >120 ms | open Follow-up duration: 16 months |
| Garrigue, 2002 | CRT versus no CRT | patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, severe heart failure and QRS prolongation of > or = 140 ms | single blind |
| darbepoetin alfa versus placebo | |||
| STAMINA-HeFT (Ghali), 2008 NCT00049985 | darbepoetin alfa SC every 2 weeks for 1 year (target hemoglobin, 14.0+/-1.0 g/dL). versus placebo | Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40%, and hemoglobin > or = 9.0 g/dL and < or = 12.5 g/dL | double blind Follow-up duration: 27 weeks |
| van Veldhuisen, 2007 NCT00086086 | darbepoetin alfa subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 26 weeks at a starting weight-adjusted dose of 0.75 mcg/kg or a fixed dose of 50 mcg versus placebo | Patients with chronic heart failure (>=3 months), left ventricular ejection fraction <= 40%, and Hb 9.0 to 12.5 g/dL | double blind Follow-up duration: 27 weeks |
| Ponikowski, 2007 NCT00117234 | Subcutaneous (SC) Darbepoetin Alfa versus subcutaneous placebo | patients with Symptomatic Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) and Anemia | double blind Follow-up duration: 27 weeks |
| Parissis, 2008 | 3-month darbepoetin alpha regimen at 1.5 microg/kg every 20 days plus oral iron versus placebo plus oral iron | CHF patients NYHA II-III, LV ejection fraction [EF] <40%, hemoglobin level <12.5 g/dL, serum creatinine level <2.5 mg/dL | |
| Parissis, 2009 | 3-month darbepoetin alfa regimen at 1.5 microg/kg every 20 days plus oral iron versus placebo plus oral iron | patients with CHF (LV ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%, hemoglobin <12.5 g/dl, and serum creatinine <2.5 mg/dl | |
| Kourea, 2008 | 3-month darbepoietin-alpha at 1.5 microg/Kg every 20 days plus iron orally versus placebo plus iron orally | CHF patients NYHA II-III; left ventricular ejection fraction <40%; hemoglobin<12.5 g/dl; serum creatinine<2.5 mg/dl | double blind |
| digoxin versus placebo | |||
| Lee, 1982 | digoxin titrated to mean serum level of 1.15 ng/mL, mean dig dosage .435 mg/day versus placebo | outpatients without atrial fibrillation | double blind Follow-up duration: 53 days |
| Taggart, 1983 | digoxin (mean plasma dig level 1.2 ng/mL) versus placebo (digoxin withdrawal) | patients with sinus rhythm who had a previous history of frank heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Fleg, 1982 | digoxin titrated to serum level of 1.0 to 2.0 ng/mL versus placebo | patients with chronic clinically compensated congestive heart failure and normal sinus rhythm | dobl eblind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Captopril-Digoxin Multicenter Research Group (CDMRG), 1988 | digoxin of .125-.375 mg/day titrated to serum levels of .7-2.5 ng/mL versus placebo (digoxin withdrawal) | patients with mild to moderate heart failure. | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| German and Austrian Xamoterol Study, 1988 | digoxin .125 mg twice dayly (mean plasma dig level .87 ng/mL) versus placebo | patients aged 29-80 with mild to moderate heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Guyatt, 1988 | digoxin titrated to serum level of 1.54– 2.56 nmol/L (1.2–2.0 ng/mL), mean dig dosage 0.391 mg/day versus placebo | congestive heart failure patients in sinus rhythm | double blind Follow-up duration: 7 weeks |
| DiBianco, 1989 | digoxin .125-.5 mg/ day versus placebo | patients in sinus rhythm with moderately severe heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Pugh, 1989 | digoxin (patient’s “usual dose” ) versus placebo (digoxin withdrawal) | patients with stable heart failure in sinus rhythm and plasma digoxin concentrations over 0.8 ng/ml | double blind Follow-up duration: 2 months |
| Blackwood, 1990 | digoxin .25 mg/day versus placebo | patients with heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Radiance, 1993 | digoxin titrated to serum level of 1.2 ng/mL (mean dig dosage .38 mg/day) versus placebo (digoxin withdrawal) | patients with New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure and left ventricular ejection fractions of 35 percent or less in normal sinus rhythm who were clinically stable while receiving digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (captopril or enalapril) | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Proved, 1993 | digoxin titrated to serum level of 1.2 ng/mL (median dig dosage .375 mg/day) versus placebo (digoxin withdrawal) | patients with chronic, stable mild to moderate heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| DIMT, 1993 | digoxin .25 mg/day (mean plasma level .94 ng/mL) versus placebo | patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG), 1997 NCT00000476 | digoxin dosage at investigators’ discretion (median baseline dosage in main trial of .25 mg/day) versus placebo | patients with left ventricular ejection fractions of 0.45 or less and normal sinus rhythm | Double blind Follow-up duration: 37 mo (mean) US, Canada |
| diltiazem versus placebo | |||
| DiDi, 1996 | diltiazem 60mg three times daily versus placebo | idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and LVEF<0.50 | Double blind Follow-up duration: 24 months germany |
| Diltiazem versus placebo | |||
| Liao , 1998 | diltiazem 30mg twice daily versus control (vitamin B1 30mg twice daily) | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | Simple aveugle Follow-up duration: 6 months China |
| diuretic agents versus placebo | |||
| Burr, 1977 | diuretic agents versus placebo (withdrawals) | elderly patients taking long-term diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| dronedarone versus placebo | |||
| ANDROMEDA, 2008 NCT00543699 | dronedarone 400mg twice daily versus placebo | patients hospitalized with symptomatic heart failure and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction | double blind Follow-up duration: median 2 months |
| enalapril versus control | |||
| Enalapril CHF investigators, 1987 | versus | ||
| Rucinska-a (enalapril), 1991 | versus | ||
| Rucinska-b (enalapril), 1991 | versus | ||
| enalapril versus enalapril | |||
| NETWORK (2.5 bid vs 10 bid), 1998 | enalapril 2.5 mg twice daily versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily | patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months UK |
| NETWORK (5 bid vs 10 bid), 1998 | enalapril 5 mg twice daily
versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily | patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months UK |
| enalapril versus hydralazine+ISDN | |||
| V-HeFT II, 1991 | enalapril 20mg daily
versus hydralazine 300 mg plus isosorbide dinitrate 160 mg daily | men with chronic congestive heart failure and cardiac dilatation (CT ratio>0.55) or LVEF <45% in association with reduced exercise tolerance and diuretic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.5y (range 0.5-5.7y) |
| enalapril versus placebo | |||
| CASSIS (enalapril), 1995 | enalapril 5-10mg daily versus placebo | patients with chronic congestive heart failure of NYHA classes II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Chrysant, 1985 | enalapril versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), New York Heart Association class II-III | double blind Follow-up duration: 14 weeks |
| Cleland, 1985 | enalapril titrated up to 40mg once daily versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV heart failure who were clinically stable on digoxin and diuretic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| CONSENSUS, 1987 | enalapril (2.5 to 40 mg per day) versus placebo | severe congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class IV) | double blind Follow-up duration: 188 days Finland, Sweden, Norway |
| Dickstein, 1991 | enalapril versus placebo | men with symptomatic heart failure (functional class II or III) and documented myocardial infarction greater than 6 months previously | double blind Follow-up duration: 48 weeks |
| McGrath, 1985 | enalapril versus placebo | patients with chronic congestive cardiac failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 week |
| Sharpe, 1984 | enalapril 5mg twice day versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to III heart failure who were clinically stable on digoxin and diuretic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| SOLVD prevention, 1992 NCT00000516 | Enalapril initial dose 2·5 or 5 mg twice daily up to 10 mg twice daily versus placebo | MI >1 month,No treatment for CHF, LVEF <=35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 3.1 y |
| SOLVD treatment, 1991 NCT00000516 | Enalapril initial dose 2·5 or 5 mg twice daily up to 10 mg twice daily versus placebo | MI >1 month,Congestive HF, LVEF <=35% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3.5 y |
| enoxaparin versus UFH | |||
| THE-PRINCE (Kleber), 2003 | enoxaparin 40mg once daily for 10+/-2 days versus UFH 5000 IU 3 times daily for 10+/-2 days | patients hospitalized for severe respiratory disease or heart failure (NYHA III, IV) | open germany |
| Enoximone versus placebo | |||
| Cowley, 1994 | Enoximone 300mg/d versus placebo | NYHA III,IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| enoximone versus placebo | |||
| EMOTE, 2007 | enoximone versus placebo | patients with ultra-advanced heart failure requiring IV inotropic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 26 weeks US |
| Enoximone versus placebo | |||
| EMTG, 1990 | Enoximone <450 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| ESG, 2000 | Enoximone 75-150 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| enoximone versus placebo | |||
| ESSENTIAL (I and II), 2009 NCT00051285 | enoximone titrated to 50 mg three times daily versus placebo | Patients with New York Heart Association class III–IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year | double blind Follow-up duration: 16.6 mo (median) Europe and North andSouth America |
| Enoximone versus placebo | |||
| Lardoux, 1987 | Enoximone 150, 300mg/d versus placebo | NYHA NA | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| WESG, 1991 | Enoximone 150, 300 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| eplerenone versus placebo | |||
| EMPHASIS-HF, 2010 NCT00232180 | eplerenone versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association class II heart failure and an ejection fraction of no more than 35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 21 months 29 countries |
| EPHESUS, 2003 | eplerenone 25 mg per day initially, titrated to amaximum of 50 mg per day versus placebo | patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure | Double blind Follow-up duration: 16 mo (mean, range 0 to 33) 37 countries |
| epoprostenol versus standard care | |||
| FIRST, 1997 | epoprostenol infusion versus standard care | Patients with class IIIB/IV congestive heart failure and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction | NA Follow-up duration: 3 and 6 months |
| eprosartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only | |||
| ADEPT, 2001 | Eprosartan, 400 to 800 mg twice daily versus Placebo | patients with stable New York Heart Association class II-IV CHF receiving ACE inhibitor therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 wk |
| Exercise training versus control | |||
| Dubach et al, 1997 | Supervised walking, two hours daily; supervised cycling 40minutes four days a week versus control | patients with chronic heart failure | open Follow-up duration: 0.7 y Switzerland |
| Giannuzzi et al, 1997 | Supervised cycling, 30 minutesthree days a week for two months, then home based 30 minutes for three days a week and walking for 30 minutes versus control | patients with <40% ejection fraction after a first Q-wave myocardial infarction | open Follow-up duration: 0.6 y Italy |
| Belardinelli et al, 1999 | Supervised cycling, 60 minutes three days a week for eightweeks, then two days a week versus no exercise | patients with CHF | open Follow-up duration: 3.1 y Italy |
| Hambrecht et al, 1995 | Supervised and home based walking, calisthenics, cycling40-60 minutes a day versus physically inactive control group | patients with chronic heart failure | open Follow-up duration: 0.4 y Germany |
| ExTraMATCH, 2004 | versus | ||
| Kiilavuori et al, 2000 | Supervised cycling 30 minutes three days a week for three months, then home basedtraining (walking, cycling,rowing, and swimming) versus control | patients with stable NYHA class II-III CHF | open Follow-up duration: 6.3 y Finland |
| McKelvie et al, 2002 | Supervised aerobic (cycling,treadmill, arm) and resistance training 30 minutes three days a week for three months, then home based aerobic training three days a week versus usual care | patients in NYHA class I to III, with ejection fraction <40% and 6-minute walk distance <500 meters | single blind Follow-up duration: 1.5 y Canada |
| Zanelli et al, 1997 | Supervised aerobic (cycling,treadmill, arm) and resistance training 30 minutes two days a week and home based cycling three days a week for two months, then only home based aerobic training five days a week versus | Follow-up duration: 0.8 y Italy | |
| Wielenga et al, 1999 | Supervised cycling, walking,ball game 30 minutes threedays a week for eight weeks, then two days a week versus control | patients with chronic heart failure NYHA II-III | open Follow-up duration: 3.9 y Netherlands |
| Willenheimer et al, 1998 | Supervised interval cyclingtraining (90 second exercise and 30 second rest) for 15-45 minutes two days a weekc versus control | patients with stable mild-to-moderate heart failure | open Follow-up duration: 4.4 y Sweden |
| felodipine versus enalapril | |||
| Dunselman, 1990 | felodipine 10 mg b.i.d. versus enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease and NYHA class III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| De Vries, 1995 | felodipine 2.5mg twice daily versus enalapril 2.5mg twice daily | patients NYHA class II-III with left ventricular ejection fraction <0.4, symptoms of CHD despite therapy with diuretics and digoxin | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months the Netherlands |
| felodipine versus placebo | |||
| VHeFT III, 1997 | felodipine 5mg twice daily versus placebo | male patient over 18 years with heart failure | Double blind Follow-up duration: mean 18mo (range 3-39 mo) US |
| Kassis, 1987 | felodipine 10 mg twice daily versus placebo | patients on conventional therapy for severe CHF | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 weeks Denmark |
| Kassis, 1990 | felopidine 10 mg BID versus placebo | severe congestive heart failure (NYHA class III) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Denmark |
| Felodipine versus placebo | |||
| Littler, 1995 | felodipine extended release 2.5-10mg twice daily (in addition to existing background medication) for 12 weeks versus placebo | patients with NYHA class II-III stable congestive heart failure despite treatment with ACE inhibitors, diuretic and digoxin or any combinaison of these drugs | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months UK |
| ferric carboxymaltose versus placebo | |||
| FAIR-HF (Anker), 2009 | ferric carboxymaltose versus placebo | patients with systolic heart failure and iron deficiency | double blind Follow-up duration: 24 weeks 11 countries |
| Flosequinan versus placebo | |||
| REFLECT II, 1991 | Flosequinan 100, 150 mg/d versus | NYHA II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Cowley, 1993 | Flosequinan 125mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| FACET, 1993 | Flosequinan 100 and 150 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| REFLECT, 1993 | Flosequinan 100mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II,III | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| fosinopril versus placebo | |||
| Brown, 1995 | fosinopril 10 or 20 mg/day versus placebo | patients with chronic congestive heart failure (NYHA II-III) not taking digitalis | double blind Follow-up duration: 24 weeks |
| FEST (Erhardt), 1996 | fosinopril 40 mg once daily titrated versus placebo | patients with mild to moderately severe heart failure (NYHA II-III) | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| frusemide plus amiloride versus captopril | |||
| Richardson, 1987 | frusemide plus amiloride versus captopril | patients who had previously been treated with diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| furosemide versus captopril | |||
| Boccanelli, 1986 | furosemide 25 to 100 mg od versus captopril 12.5 to 50 mg bid +furosemide 25mg od | patients with moderate congestive heart failure not completely controlled on digoxin (0.25 mg o.d.) and frusemide (25 mg o.d.), | double blind Follow-up duration: 13 weeks |
| Cowley, 1986 | furosemide (increased doses of frusemide) versus captopril (addition) | patients with moderate heart failure who still had symptoms despite 40 mg frusemide daily | double blind |
| furosemide versus placebo | |||
| Mathur, 1984 | furosemide hydrochlorotiazide versus placebo | patient with pulmonary heart disease due to severe chronic airflow obstruction and clinical features of congestive heart failure during respiratory failure | double blind |
| furosemide + spironolactone versus prenalterol | |||
| Dalhstrom, 1986 | intensified treatment with diuretics (furosemide- spironolactone) versus prenalterol 100-200 mg daily in addition to their basal treatment | patients with severe chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) due to ischaemic heart disease treated with digitalis and diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| gene therapy versus placebo | |||
| CUPID, 2011 | SERCA2a gene therapy versus placebo | patients NYHA class 3-4 heart failure and an LVEF <35% | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months US |
| hydralazine versus control | |||
| Chatterjee, 1980 | oral hydralazine versus NA | patients with chronic CHF | |
| hydralazine versus placebo | |||
| Franciosa, 1982 | hydralazine 200 mg daily versus placebo | patients with class III and IV symptoms while they were taking digitalis and diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 20 weeks |
| Conradson , 1984 | hydralazine versus placebo | patients with chronic congestive heart failure (NYHA class III) | Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| Magorien , 1984 | hydralazine 100 mg orally every eight hours versus placebo | patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy | double blind |
| hydralazine-ISDN versus placebo | |||
| VHeFT I (hydralazine ISDN), 1986 | hydralazine 300mg/d ISDN 160mg/d versus placebo | patienst with chronic congestive heart failure and cardiac dilatation (CT ratio>0.55) or LVEF <45% in association with reduced exercise tolerance | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.3 y (range 0.5-5.7 years) |
| hydrochlorothiazide versus benazepril | |||
| Nordrehaug, 1992 | hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg daily versus benazepril 20 mg daily | patients with symptomatic (NYHA functional class 2) mild heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| hydrochlorothiazide+triamterene versus digoxin | |||
| Sievert, 1989 | hydrochlorothiazide+triamterene versus digoxin | patients in heart failure and sinus rhythm | double blind Follow-up duration: 5 weeks |
| ibesartan versus placebo | |||
| I-PRESERVE (McMurray), 2008 NCT00095238 | ibersatan 300mg daily versus placebo | patients with NYHA II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 45% | double blind Follow-up duration: 49.5 months Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, South Africa, and Australia |
| ibopamine versus placebo | |||
| PRIME II, 1997 | oral ibopamine 100 mg three times daily versus placebo | patients with heart failure NYHA III-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: mean 11.4 months |
| ICD versus no ICD | |||
| MADIT, 1996 | ICD versus anti arrhythmic drugs as conventional therapy | patients with MI >=3 wk before entry and EF <=0.35 and Asymptomatic unsustained VT unrelated to an acute MI with inducible VT not suppressed after iv procainamide | open Follow-up duration: 27 months |
| MADIT-II, 2002 | implantable cardiac defibrillator versus no ICD, optimized medical therapy | patients with a prior myocardial infarction and EF<=0.30 | open Follow-up duration: 20 months |
| CASH, 2000 | ICD versus antiarrhythmic agents (amiodarone and metoprolol) | secondary prevention: survivors of cardiac arrest secondary to documented ventricular arrhythmias | open Follow-up duration: 57 months |
| CAT, 2002 | ICD versus no iCD, conventional therapy | patients with recent onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF <=0.30 | open Follow-up duration: 66 months |
| DEFINITE, 2004 | ICD versus no ICD, standard medical therapy | patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <0.36 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia or frequent premature ventricular complexes | open Follow-up duration: 29 months |
| SCD-HeFT (ICD vs placebo), 2005 NCT00000609 | ICD versus optimized medical therapy | patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35 | open Follow-up duration: 45.5 months |
| AVID, 1997 NCT00000531 | ICD versus class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone | secondary prevention: patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia | open Follow-up duration: 18.2 months |
| CIDS, 2000 | ICD versus amiodarone | secondary prevention: patients with resuscitated VF or VT or with unmonitored syncope | Follow-up duration: 36 months |
| CABG-patch, 1997 NCT00000540 | ICD versus control | patients undergoing CABG with EF <=0.35 and Abnormal signal-averaged electrocardiogram | open Follow-up duration: 32 months |
| DINAMIT, 2004 | implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus no ICD, optimized medical therapy | patients within 6–40 days of myocardial infarct ischemic with EF<=0.35 and cardiac autonomic modulation (depressed heart rate variability or increased mean 24-hour heart rate) | open Follow-up duration: 30 months |
| MUSIT, 1999 | ICD or drugs as indicated by electrophysiologic testing versus no antiarrhythmic therapy | patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF<=0.40 and Inducible, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias | open Follow-up duration: median 39 months |
| SCD-HeFT (ICD vs amiodarone), 2005 NCT00000609 | ICD versus optimized medical therapy with amiodarone | patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35 | open Follow-up duration: 45.5 months |
| Imazodan versus placebo | |||
| IRG, 1991 | Imazodan 4,10, 20 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA III,IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| Indolidan versus placebo | |||
| Dies, 1989 | Indolidan dose NA versus placebo | NYHA II,III | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| irbesartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only | |||
| Tonkon et al., 2000 | Irbesartan, 150 mg daily (plus ACE inhibitor) versus Placebo (plus ACE inhibitor) | patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II and III) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 40% received stable doses of ACE inhibitors and diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk |
| isosorbide dinitrate versus placebo | |||
| NICE (Lewis), 1999 | isosorbide-5-mononitrate 50 mg once daily versus placebo | patients (NYHA Class 2-3) treated for heart failure, all receiving captopril and most also furosemide | Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Franciosa , 1978 | isosorbide dinitrate versus placebo | double blind | |
| isradipine versus placebo | |||
| Van den Toren, 1996 | isradipine up to 5mg 3 times daily versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease, NYHA class II-III, FE<40% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months The NetherlanA |
| ivabradine versus placebo | |||
| SHIFT, 2010 ISRCTN70429960 | ivabradine versus placebo | patients with NYHA class 2-4 heart failure, an LVEF <35%, a resting heart rate >70 bpm, and a heart-failure hospitalization within the previous year | double-blind Follow-up duration: 23 months 37 countries |
| ivabradine 15mg versus placebo | |||
| BEAUTIFUL, 2008 NCT00143507 | ivabradine target dose of 7·5 mg twice a day
versus placebo | patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF <=40%) | double blind Follow-up duration: 19 months (range 16-24) 33 countries |
| ixmyelocel-T versus control | |||
| Catheter-DCM, 2014 NCT01020968 | ixmyelocel-T: an expanded, autologous multi-cellular therapy versus | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| IMPACT-DCM, 2014 NCT00765518 | ixmyelocel-T: an expanded, autologous multi-cellular therapy, versus | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| ixmyelocel-T versus placebo | |||
| ixCELL-DCM, 2016 NCT01670981 | ixmyelocel-T versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV symptomatic heart failure due to ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who had left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and who were ineligible for revascularisation procedures | |
| lisinopril versus control | |||
| Giles, 1990 | versus | ||
| Rucinska-c (lisinopril), 1000 | versus | ||
| Zwehl, 1990 | versus | ||
| lisinopril versus lisinopril | |||
| ATLAS, 1999 | lisinopril low dose 2.5-5 mg daily versus lisnopril high dose 32.5-35 mg daily | patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure and an ejection fraction <=30% | double blind Follow-up duration: 39 to 58 months 19 countries |
| lisinopril versus placebo | |||
| Gilbert, 1993 | lisinopril versus placebo | subjects with heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| International Study Group (Lewis), 1989 | lisnopril titrated up to 10mg daily versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure NYHA II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks New Zealand |
| losartan versus captopril | |||
| ELITE, 1997 | Losartan titrated to 50 mg once daily versus Captopril,titratedto 50 mg three times daily | ACE inhibitor naive patients (aged 65 years or more) with New York HeartAssociation (NYHA) class II–IV heart failure and ejection fractions of 40% or less | Double blind Follow-up duration: 48 wk United States, Europe and South America |
| ELITE II, 2000 | Losartan, target dose 50 mg daily versus Captopril, target dose 50 mg 3 times daily | patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. | Double blind Follow-up duration: median 1.5y 46 countries |
| losartan versus enalapril | |||
| Losartan phase II S, 1996 | losartan 50 or 25 mg/d versus enalapril 10mg twice daily | patient with heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| losartan phase II US, 1996 | losartan 25 and 50 mg/d versus enalapril 10mg twice daily | patients with heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| Dickstein et al., 1995 | Losartan, 25 mg, 50mg daily versus Enalapril, 10 mg twice daily | patients with moderate or severe chronic heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and an ejection fraction < or = 35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 wk |
| Lang et al., 1997 | Losartan titrated to 25 mg ou 50 mg daily versus Enalapril, titrated to 10 mg twice daily | patients with congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association functionalclasses II to IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction <= 45%previously treated with stable doses of ACE inhibitors and diureticagents, with or without concurrent digitalis and othervasodilators | Double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk US, Canada |
| losartan versus placebo | |||
| Losartan Phase III U.S., 1995 | Losartan, 50 mg daily versus Placebo | patients with heart failure who had never received ACE inibitors or who had discontinued ACE inhibitors | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk |
| Losartan Phase III International, 1996 | Losartan, 50 mg daily versus Placebo | patients with heart failure who had never received ACE inibitors or who had discontinued ACE inhibitors | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk |
| losartan 150mg versus losartan 50mg | |||
| HEAAL, 2009 NCT00090259 | losartan 150mg daily versus losartan 50 mg daily | patients with systolic heart failure who couldn't tolerate ACE inhibitors | double blind Follow-up duration: 4.7 y (median) 30 countries |
| losartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only | |||
| Hamroff et al., 1999 | Losartan, 50 mg daily (plus ACE inhibitor) versus Placebo (plus ACE inhibitor) | patients with severe congestive heart failure (NYHA III-IV) despite treatment with maximally recommended or tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| Mesenchymal stem cells versus allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells | |||
| POSEIDON, 2012 NCT01087996 | allogeneic MSCs versus autologous bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells delivered by transendocardial injection | patients with LV dysfunction due to ICM | |
| metoprolol versus placebo | |||
| Engelmeier, 1985 | metoprolol versus placebo | NYHA 2-4, IDC | Follow-up duration: 12 mo |
| Metoprolol versus placebo | |||
| BEST (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Metoprolol versus placebo | Upper tertile age | |
| metoprolol versus placebo | |||
| MDC (Waagstein), 1993 | metoprolol target dose 100-150 mg daily (dose divided into two or three per day) versus placebo | patient with heart failure due to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (NYHA 1-3) and EF<40% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 18 months Europe, North America |
| Fisher, 1994 | metoprolol versus placebo | NYHA 3-4, CAD | Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| Eichhorn, 1994 | metoprolol versus placebo | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Follow-up duration: 3 mo |
| MERIT-HF, 1999 | metoprolol CR/XL at target dose of 200 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with chronic heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II–IV and with ejection fraction of 0·40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1 y USA and Europe |
| RESOLVD, 2000 | metoprolol CR 200 mg/d versus placebo | CHF of mixed causes, patients with symptomatic CHF(NYHA II to IV), a 6-minute walk distance of <500 m, and an LV ejection fraction (EF) of<40% | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| mibefradil versus placebo | |||
| MACH 1, 2000 | mibefradil titrated up to100mg daily versus placebo | Patients with moderate to severe congestive heart failure (NYHA class II to IV and left ventricular fraction ,35%).pj | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 1.6 years US, Canada, Europe and Israel |
| Milrinone versus placebo | |||
| MMTG, 1989 | Milrinone <40mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| PROMISE, 1991 | Milrinone 40mg/d versus placebo | NYHA III,IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 20 months |
| myoblasts versus control | |||
| CAuSMIC, 2005 | 3-dimensional guided catheter-based delivery of autologous skeletal myoblasts versus control | patients with previous myocardial infarction and heart failure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV | Follow-up duration: 12 mo |
| SEISMIC, 2011 | percutaneous intramyocardial transplantation of autologous skeletal myoblasts versus control | Patienst with heart failure patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators | Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| myoblasts versus placebo | |||
| MAGIC, 2001 | autologous skeletal myoblasts into the postinfarction scar during coronary artery bypass grafting of remote myocardial areas versus placebo | patient with severe ischaemic heart failure | Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| MARVEL, 2011 NCT00526253 | image-guided, catheter-based intramyocardial injection of placebo or myoblasts (400 or 800 million) versus placebo | patients with class II to IV HF and ejection fraction <35% | Follow-up duration: 6 mo |
| Nebivolol versus placebo | |||
| Lechat, 1991 | nebivolol 5mg/d versus placebo | NYHA 3-4 | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 1.5 month France |
| Wisenbaugh, 1993 | nebivolol versus placebo | patients with dilated idiopathic or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction 0.15 to 0.40) in stable NYHA class II or III | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 mo |
| nebivolol versus placebo | |||
| SENIORS, 2005 | nebivolol (titrated from 1.25 mg once
daily to 10 mg once daily) versus placebo | patients aged 70 years with a history of heart failure (hospital admission for heart failure within the previous year or known ejection fraction 35%), | Double blind Follow-up duration: 21 months Europe |
| nesiritide versus control | |||
| NSGET (comparative trial), 2000 | nesiritide(0.015 and 0.030 microg/kg/min versus usual care | acutely decompensated heart failure requiring invasive monitoring | open Follow-up duration: <5 days US |
| nesiritide versus dobutamine | |||
| PRECEDENT, 2002 NCT00270400 | nesiritide(0.015 or 0.03 microg/kg/min) versus Dobutamine (> or =5 microg/kg/min) | Symptomatic, Decompensated CHF | open |
| nesiritide versus nitroglycerin | |||
| VMAC (24h), 2002 NCT00083772 | nesiritideinfusion for 24 hours versus nitroglycerin | acutely decompensated heart failure requiring hospitalization | |
| nesiritide versus placebo | |||
| ASCEND-HF, 2011 NCT00475852 | intravenous nesiritide for 24 hours to 7 days on top of standard therapy versus matching placebo | Patients hospitalized for heart failure (within 24 hours of hospitalization and institution of acute IV therapy for ADHF) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 30 days North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific region |
| BNP-CARDS, 2007 NCT00186329 | nesiritide as a 0.01-µg/kg/min infusion for 48 hours versus placebo | acute decompensated heart failure with moderate to severe renal insufficiency | Double blind Follow-up duration: 7 days US |
| FUSION 2, 2008 NCT00091520 | nesiritide (2 µg/kg bolus plus 0.01 µg/kg-per-minute infusion for four to six hours) versus placebo | patients with ACC/AHA stage C/D heart failure with two recent heart-failure hospitalizations, an ejection fraction of less than 40%, and NYHA class 4 symptoms or NYHA class 3 symptoms with creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min | double-blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| NSGET (efficacy trial), 2000 | nesiritide(0.015 and 0.030 microg/kg/min versus placebo | acutely decompensated heart failure requiring invasive monitoring | |
| PROACTION, 2003 | nesiritidefor at least 12h versus placebo | patients presenting to the ED with acutely decompensated HF and dyspnea at rest or with minimal activity | double-blind Follow-up duration: 30 days USA |
| VMAC (intravenous neseritide), 2002 NCT00083772 | intravenous nesiritidefor 3 hours versus placebo | acutely decompensated heart failure requiring hospitalization | double-blind USA |
| nesiritide versus standard care | |||
| FUSION 1, 2004 NCT00270361 | nesiritide 0.005 microg/kg/min or 0.010 microg/kg/min once weekly versus standard care | outpatient with co-morbid advanced heart failure and renal insufficiency | open Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| nicardipine versus control | |||
| Gheorghiade, 1991 | nicardipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| Abrams, 1993 | nicardipine versus | CHD multiple cause, NYHA class III-IV | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 months |
| nisoldipine versus captopril | |||
| Schofer, 1990 | nisoldipine (2 X 10 mg) versus captopril (3 X 25 mg) | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease, NYHA class II-III | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| nisoldipine versus placebo | |||
| Rousseau, 1994 | nisoldipine 20 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease, NYHA class II | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2 months |
| Nisoldipine versus placebo | |||
| Gaudron, 1996 | Nisoldipine versus placebo | patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease, NYHA class II, FE<=45% | Follow-up duration: 18 months |
| omapatrilat versus enalapril | |||
| OVERTURE, 2002 | omapatrilat 40 mg once dailyitm versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily | patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 14.5 months 42 countries |
| omapatrilat versus lisinopril | |||
| IMPRESS, 2000 | omapatrilat target
dose 40 mg daily versus lisinopril target dose 20mg daily | patients with NTHA II-IV congestive heart failure, LEVF <=40%, and receiving ACE inhibitor | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks (24 weeks) USA, canada |
| perindopril versus placebo | |||
| Lechat, 1993 | perindopril, 2 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with grade II or III New York Heart Association chronic congestive heart failure on baseline diuretic therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 3-month |
| PEP CHF, 2006 | perindopril, 4 mg/day versus placebo | patients aged >=70 years with a diagnosis of heart failure, treated with diuretics and an echocardiogram suggesting diastolic dysfunction and excluding substantial LV systolic dysfunction or valve disease | double blind Follow-up duration: 26.2 months (range 12-54.2m) Europe |
| Pimobendan versus placebo | |||
| Bergler-Klein, 1992 | Pimobendan 10mg/day versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| PMRG, 1992 | Pimobendan 2.5, 5, 10 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA III,IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| EPOCH, 2002 | Pimobendan 2.5 to 5mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II,III | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| PICO, 1996 | Pimobendan 2.5, 5 mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II, III | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| piretanide versus digoxin | |||
| Haerer, 1989 | piretanide versus digoxin | double blind | |
| piretanide versus placebo | |||
| Sherman, 1986 | piretanide versus placebo | patients with mild to moderately severe congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 weeks |
| placebo (diuretics withdrawal) versus various diuretics | |||
| Myers (copie de 7314), 1982 | placebo (diuretics withdrawal) versus various diuretics | elderly not receiving concurrent digoxin therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 52 weeks |
| prazosin versus placebo | |||
| VHeFT I (prazosin), 1986 | hydralazine 300mg/d ISDN 160mg/d
, prazosin 2.5mg four times daily versus placebo | men with chronic congestive heart failure and cardiac dilatation (CT ratio>0.55) or LVEF <45% in association with reduced exercise tolerance | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.3 y (range 0.5-5.7 years) |
| Colucci, 1980 | prazosin versus placebo | ||
| Markham, 1983 | prazosin, 20 mg/day, versus | patients with congestive heart failure receiving a stable dose of digitalis and diuretics | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Higginbotham, 1983 | prazosin versus placebo | ||
| pulsatile-flow versus medical treatment | |||
| REMATCH, 2001 | left ventricular assist device versus optimal medical management | patients with end-stage heart failure who were ineligible for cardiac transplantation | open Follow-up duration: >1 y |
| ramipril versus control | |||
| Swedberg, 1991 | versus | ||
| ramipril versus placebo | |||
| AIRE, 1993 | Ramipril 2·5 mg twice daily initial dose, up to 5 mg twice daily for at least 6 months versus placebo | patient within 3–10 days of a MI,with clinical evidence of heart failure | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.25 y 14 countries |
| Gordon, 1991 | ramipril 10mg/d versus placebo | patients with herat failure and LVFE<=35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks USA |
| Gundersen, 1994 | ramipril titrated from 1.25 mg to a maximum of 10 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with NYHA II-III CHF, LVFE<=40% and size of the heart >600ml/m2 for mean or >550ml/m2 for women | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks four Nordic countries |
| Lemarie, 1992 | ramipril 2.5mg twice daily versus placebo | patient with NYHA II-III heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 24 weeks France |
| Maass-a, 1991 | ramipril versus placebo | patients with heart failure | |
| Maass-b, 1991 | ramirpil 5 or 10 mg once daily versus placebo | patient with NYHA II-III heart failure and LVFE<=40% | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks Europe |
| Maass-c, 1991 | ramipril 10mg once daily versus placebo | patient with heart failure with LVFE<=35% | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| rivaroxaban versus placebo | |||
| COMMANDER HF, 2018 NCT01877915 | rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily versus placebo | patients who had chronic heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, coronary artery disease, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides and who did not have atrial fibrillation | Follow-up duration: 21.1 months |
| rolofylline versus placebo | |||
| PROTECT-1, NCT00328692 | versus | ||
| rosuvastatin versus placebo | |||
| CORONA, 2007 NCT00206310 | rosuvastatin 10mg/d versus placebo | patients at least 60 years of age with NYHA class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 32.9 months median |
| Krum, 2007 | rosuvastatine 40mg/d versus placebo | patients with systolic (LVEF<40%) CHF of ischemic or nonischemic etiology | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months Australia |
| GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008 NCT00336336 | low-dose rosuvastatin 10 mg daily versus placebo | Patients with NYHA classes II to IV heart failure, whatever the cause and the LVEF and already receiving optimized recommended therapy with no clear indication or contraindication to cholesterollowering therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 3.9y median (IQR 3-4.4) Italy |
| sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril | |||
| PARADIGM-HF, 2014 NCT01035255 | versus | ||
| serelaxin versus placebo | |||
| Pre-RELAX-AHF, 2009 NCT00520806 | intravenous relaxin for 48 hours: 10µg/kg daily, 30µg/kg daily, 100µg/kg daily, 250µg/kg daily versus placebo | Patients hospitalized with acute heart failure | double blind |
| simvastatin versus control | |||
| Hong, 2005 | simvastatin versus no treatment | patients with ischemic heart failure who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction <40%) | open Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| simvastatin versus ezetimibe | |||
| Landmesser, 2005 | simvastatin 10mg/d versus ezetimibe 10mg/d | patients with chronic heart failure | |
| simvastatin versus placebo | |||
| Node, 2003 | simvastatin 10mg/d versus placebo | patients with symptomatic, nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy | |
| spirapril versus placebo | |||
| CASSIS (spirapril), 1995 | spirapril 1.5 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg daily versus placebo | patients with chronic congestive heart failure of NYHA classes II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks |
| spironolactone versus control | |||
| Cicoira, 2002 | spironolactone 12.5 to 50 mg/day versus control | patients with chronic heart failure | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Cicoira, 2004 | spironolactone versus control | chronic heart failure patients | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Ramires, 2000 | spironolactone versus standard medical treatment | patients with systolic dysfunction and NYHA class III CHF secondary to dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy | open Follow-up duration: 20 weeks |
| spironolactone versus placebo | |||
| Agostoni, 2005 | spironolactone 25mg/d versus placebo | stable chronic heart failure patients with reduced influences lung diffusion (DLCO) | open Follow-up duration: 6 months Italy |
| Barr, 1995 | spironolactone 50 to 100 mg/day, titrated to blood pressure and plasma potassium (added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association II to III congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| Farquharson, 2000 | spironolactone 50 mg/d versus placebo | patients with NYHA class II to III chronic heart failure on standard diuretic/ACE inhibitor therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 weeks |
| Macdonald, 2004 | spironolactone 12.5-50 mg/d versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association class I-II congestive heart failure taking optimal treatment (including beta blockers) | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| MacFadyen, 1997 | spironolactone (50-100 mg/day) versus placebo | patients with stable chronic heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks |
| Mottram, 2004 | spironolactone 25 mg/d versus placebo | hypertensive patients with diastolic heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| RALES, 1998 | spironolactone (25 to 50 mg daily) versus placebo | patients with severeheart failure | Open Follow-up duration: 24 mo World |
| Tsutamoto, 2001 | spironolactone 25 mg daily versus placebo | patients with mild-to-moderate nonischemic congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 12 weeks Japan |
| Yee, 2001 | spironolactone 50mg/d versus placebo | patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV congestive heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 weeks |
| TOPCAT, 2014 NCT00094302 | spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) versus placebo | patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.3 years |
| spironolactone+captopril versus captopril | |||
| Han, 1994 | captopril plus spironolactone versus captopril alone | patients with refractory CHF and New York Heart Association functional class IV without renal dysfunction, hypotension and hyperkalemia | open Follow-up duration: 4 weeks China |
| spironolactone+furosemide versus spironolactone+butizide | |||
| Mauersberger, 1985 | spironolactone 50mg + furosemide 20 mg versus spironolactone 50mg + butizide 5mg | patients with congestive heart failure | open |
| Stem cells versus control | |||
| TAC-HFT, 2014 NCT00768066 | transendocardial injection of bone marrow-derived progenitor cells versus placebo | Patients With Chronic Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Heart Failure Secondary to Myocardial Infarction | |
| structured exercise training versus control | |||
| Patwala, 2009 | program of physician-supervised exercise training versus control | patients with chronic systolic heart failure receiving a Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy device | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| HF-ACTION, 2008 NCT00047437 | highly structured exercise program focused on increasing workout intensity and duration versus usual care,including recommendations for daily exercise | heart-failure patients (NYHA class 2-4, ejection fraction <35%) | open Follow-up duration: mean 2.5 y USA, Canada, France |
| telemonitoring versus control | |||
| TELE-HF, 2010 | telemonitoring-guided management versus usual care | patients with an HF hospitalization within the previous month | open Follow-up duration: 180 days US |
| telmisartan versus enalapril | |||
| REPLACE, 2001 | Telmisartan, 10 mg, 20mg, 40mg, 80mg daily versus Enalapril, 10 mg twice daily | ambulatory patients at least 21 years of age, in sinus rhythm, with chronic moderatesymptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Associatality.tion class II–III) and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or lower | Double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk |
| tolvaptan versus placebo | |||
| EVEREST Clinical Status , 2007 NCT00071331 | versus | patients hospitalized with heart failure | |
| EVEREST Outcome, 2007 | versus | patients hospitalized with heart failure | |
| tovalpan versus placebo | |||
| Udelson, 2007 NCT00043758 | tolvaptan 30 mg/day versus placebo | patients with HF and reduced systolic function | double blind Follow-up duration: 1 year |
| trandolapril versus placebo | |||
| TRACE, 1995 | Trandolapril 1 mg daily initial dose, up to 4 mg daily versus placebo | patient within 3–7 days of a MI,Wall motion index <1·2 (LVEF <35%) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 y Denmark |
| Hampton, 1998 | trandolapril titrated up to 4mg/d versus placebo | patients with moderate (New York Heart Association Grades II and III) heart failure | double blind Follow-up duration: 16 weeks |
| Ultrafiltration versus Diuretics | |||
| UNLOAD, NCT00124137 | Ultrafiltration (Aquadex system) versus IV Diuretics | Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure | open |
| valsartan versus enalapril | |||
| HEAVEN, 2002 | Valsartan, 160 mg daily versus Enalapril, 10 mg twice daily | Men and women with mild/moderate heart failure stabilised on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and left ventricular ejection fraction 0.45 or less | Double blind Follow-up duration: 12 wk NA |
| valsartan versus Lisinopril | |||
| Mazayev et al. (vs lisinopril, 1998 | Valsartan, 40 mg, 80mg, 160mg twice daily versus lisinopril 10mg once daily | patients with chronic heart failure | NA Follow-up duration: 4 wk Russia |
| valsartan versus no valsartan | |||
| VALIDD, 2007 NCT00170924 | valsartan titrated up to 320 mg once daily versus placebo | Patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction | double blind Follow-up duration: 38 weeks USA, canada |
| valsartan versus placebo | |||
| Mazayev et al. (vs placebo), 1998 | valsartan 40, 80 or 160 mg twice daily versus Placebo | patients with chronic heart failure previously untreated with ACE inhibitors | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 wk Russia |
| valsartan+ACE inhibitor versus ACE inhibitor only | |||
| V-HeFT, 1999 | Valsartan 80 mg and 160mg twice daily (plus ACE inhibitor) versus Placebo (plus usual ACE inhibitor) | Patients with stable symptomatic congestive heart failure (CHF) receiving long-term ACE inhibitor therapy (NYHA functional class II,III, or IV) and PCWP >or=to 15 mm Hg | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 wk US |
| Val-HeFT, 2001 | Valsartan, 160 mg twice daily (plus ACE inhibitor) versus Placebo (plus ACE inhibitor) | patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV | Double blind Follow-up duration: 23 mo 16 countries |
| various diuretics versus placebo | |||
| De jong, 1994 | diuretics versus placebo (diuretics withdrawal) | patients aged 65 years or older and taking diuretic drugs | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks the Netherlands |
| Myers, 1982 | various diuretics versus placebo (withdrawals) | elderly not receiving concurrent digoxin therapy | double blind Follow-up duration: 52 weeks |
| Walma, 1997 | various diuretics versus placebo (withdrawals) | elderly patients taking long-term diuretics without manifest heart failure or hypertension | double blind Follow-up duration: 14 weeks |
| Vesnarinone versus placebo | |||
| OPC-8212 MRG, 1990 | Vesnarinone 60mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 3 months |
| VEST, 1998 | Vesnarinone 30, 60mg/d versus placebo | NYHA III,IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 9 months |
| VSG, 1993 | Vesnarinone 60mg/d versus placebo | NYHA II-IV | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| warfarin versus aspirin | |||
| HELAS (warfarin vs aspirin), 2006 | warfarin versus aspirin 325mg/d | HF related to ischemic heart disease with LVFE<35% | Double blind Follow-up duration: 21.9 months Europe |
| WATCH (warfarin vs aspirin), 2009 NCT00007683 | warfarin (target INR 2.5-3.0) versus aspirin 162 mg daily | symptomatic heart failure patients in sinus rhythm with ejection fractions 35% taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (unless not tolerated) and diuretics | open |
| warfarin versus no treatment | |||
| WASH (warfarin), 2004 | warfarin (target INR 2.5) versus no treatment | patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring diuretic therapy with LVEF<=35% | open Follow-up duration: 27 months UK, US |
| warfarin versus placebo | |||
| HELAS (warfarin vs placebo), 2006 | warfarin (target
INR of 2–3) versus placebo | HF due to dilated cardiomyopathy | double blind Follow-up duration: 21.9 months Europe |
| Barzizza (warfarin), 1993 | warfarin to maintain INR between 2 and 3 versus placebo | patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and evidence of intraventricular thrombi | NA Follow-up duration: 6 months |
-
About
-
Browse pathology
|
treatment
-
Site map
-
Credits
Made with in Lyon
-
Contact us
-
Privacy policy
-
