Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database in Heart and vessels Feedback    Home

Systematic review and meta-analysis

This trial is included in the following systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

cardiovascular prevention - cholesterol lowering intervention - all chronical situations

heart failure - cholesterol lowering intervention - all type of patients


Related trials

IMPROVE-IT, 2014 - ezetimibe vs control

AIM-HIGH, 2011 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

SEARCH, 2010 - simvastatin high dose vs simvastatin

ACCORD lipid, 2010 - fenofibrate vs placebo (on top simvastatine)

SHARP, 2010 - ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo

ARBITER-HALTS 6, 2010 - ezetimibe vs niacin

ARBITER 2, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

Oxford Niaspan Study, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

Emmerich, 2009 - etofibrate vs placebo

ARBITER 6-HALTS (niacin vs ezetimibe), 2009 - niacin vs ezetimibe

SANDS, 2008 - aggressive treatment vs standard teatment

Tuttle, 2008 - low fat diet vs mediterranean-style diet

GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

JUPITER, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

SAGE, 2007 - atorvastatin high dose vs pravastatin

Krum, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

CORONA, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

METEOR, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

Yamada, 2007 - atorvastatin vs control

MEGA, 2006 - pravastatin vs control

Sola, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

SPARCL, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Wojnicz, 2006 - atorvastatin vs control

ASPEN, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Hong, 2005 - simvastatin vs control



See also:

  • All cardiovascular prevention clinical trials
  • All heart failure clinical trials
  • All clinical trials of cholesterol lowering intervention
  • All clinical trials of rosuvastatin
    		•  
     Krum study, 2007 TRC7339 
    download pdf: rosuvastatin | cholesterol lowering intervention for cardiovascular prevention

    Treatments

    Studied treatment rosuvastatine 40mg/d
    Control treatment placebo

    Patients

    Patients patients with systolic (LVEF<40%) CHF of ischemic or nonischemic etiology

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 40 / 46 (studied vs. control)
    Design Parallel groups
    Blinding double blind
    Follow-up duration 6 months
    Number of centre 21
    Geographic area Australia
    Primary endpoint LVEF by radionuclide ventriculogram


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N     Control treat.
    n/N     Graph RR [95% CI]

    All cause death

    2 / 40
         3 / 46
         classic 0,77 [0,13;4,36]     0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial    		 Ref
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 2 / 40 (5,0%) 3 / 46 (6,5%) 0,77 [0,13;4,36]  
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
    Reference(s) used for data extraction:
  • 0:

    • Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction (for a follow-up of 6 months)
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 5,00% 6,52% -1,52%

    Meta-analysis of all similar trials:

    cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations

    cholesterol lowering intervention in heart failure for all type of patients



    Reference(s)

    TrialResults-center ID TRC7339
    Trials register # NA
    • Krum H, Ashton E, Reid C, Kalff V, Rogers J, Amarena J, Singh B, Tonkin A. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of high-dose HMG CoA reductase inhibitor therapy on ventricular remodeling, pro-inflammatory cytokines and neurohormonal parameters in patients with chronic systolic heart failure.. J Card Fail 2007;13:1-7
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2016 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  Facebook  |  notify a friend

    100Heart and vessels