FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2130057013> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2130057013 endingPage "2946" @default.
• W2130057013 startingPage "2942" @default.
• W2130057013 abstract "HomeCirculationVol. 109, No. 24Digitalis Therapy for Patients in Clinical Heart Failure Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBDigitalis Therapy for Patients in Clinical Heart Failure Shahbudin H. Rahimtoola, MB, FRCP, DSc (Hon) Shahbudin H. RahimtoolaShahbudin H. Rahimtoola From the Griffith Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at USC, Los Angeles, Calif. Search for more papers by this author Originally published22 Jun 2004https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000132477.32438.03Circulation. 2004;109:2942–2946The most commonly used preparation of digitalis is digoxin, which is obtained from the leaves of Digitalis lanata, a common flowering plant called “foxglove.” The words digitalis and digoxin in this article are used interchangeably. An exhaustive review published in 19961 cited a large number of references and had detailed data and descriptions of a large number of studies and all early trials. The present article summarizes those data but focuses on and emphasizes data collected since that time.Actions of Cardiac GlycosidesThese have been described in detail previously1 and are briefly summarized.Inotropic EffectsThe inotropic effects have been documented in the isolated papillary muscles and in the normal hearts of animals and humans. The inotropic action occurs in both ventricles and in both atria. In the normal heart and in those with coronary artery disease and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function, with digitalis the LV function curve is moved upward and to the left.1 As a result, LV end-diastolic pressure and LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes are reduced, and there is an increase of LV ejection fraction (LVEF).1Patients With Heart FailureIn patients with heart failure (HF), digoxin slows the ventricular rate (1) in sinus rhythm because of an improvement in HF and withdrawal of sympathetic stimulation and (2) in atrial fibrillation by increasing parasympathetic tone. The combination of digoxin and carvedilol is superior to digoxin or carvedilol alone.2Peripheral VesselsIn normal subjects given intravenous ouabain, there is arterial and venous vasocontriction.3 The vasoconstriction is obviated by administering digoxin slowly over a period of 15 to 20 minutes1; moreover, the vasoconstriction lasts up to 30 minutes. The seminal study of Mason and Braunwald3 showed that in HF, the effects are different. Digitalis produces an increase of blood flow, a decrease of vascular resistance, venodilation, and a decrease of central venous pressure and heart rate (Figure 1). The vasodilation is the result of an increase in cardiac output and direct baroreflex-mediated withdrawal of sympathetic vasoconstriction. The reduction of systemic vascular resistance in patients in HF has been repeatedly confirmed.1Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Hemodynamic response to intravenous ouabain in patients in clinical HF. Reproduced with permission from Reference 3.Coronary CirculationThe effect of intravenous digoxin on the coronary vasculature is similar to those described above. The vasoconstriction can produce transient myocardial ischemia in those with severely obstructed coronary artery disease. These effects are prevented by administering intravenous digoxin slowly over a period of 15 minutes.1BaroreflexesDigitalis normalizes the blunted baroreflex mechanisms present in HF.4 Digitalis produces a rapid and profound alteration of sympathetic nerve activity before the hemodynamic effects are observed; that is, there may be dissociation between the neuroendocrine and hemodynamic effects.4NeurohormonalIn HF, digitalis therapy has been shown to reduce plasma norepinephrine levels, serum aldosterone, and plasma renin activity, which has been repeatedly documented.1DiureticDigoxin induces diuresis in patients with HF who have fluid retention.1 The mechanism (s) are multiple1: (1) vasodilation and increased CO improves renal hemodynamics; (2) inhibition of tubular reabsorption of sodium, of renal Na+ -K+-ATPase, and of concentrating and diluting ability; and (3) increased secretion of atrial natriuretic peptide.SummaryIn patients in HF, the multiple actions of digitalis are Positive inotropicSlowing of rapid ventricular rateVasodilationIncreasing baroreceptor sensitivityReducing plasma neurohormonesIncreasing vagal toneDiuresisBeneficial Clinical EffectsThere have been 16 small, randomized trials5–22 and 8 nonrandomized studies that were reviewed previously.1 In brief, these have documented symptomatic improvement, improved HF score, increased exercise capacity and V̇o2, improved hemodynamics at rest and on exercise, increased LVEF at rest and on exercise, reduction of heart rate, and other beneficial effects (Table 1). In each study, only a few parameters were measured. LV function from one study (Figure 2) shows that at rest and on exercise, when digoxin is added to diuretics or to diuretics and ACE inhibitors (ACE-I), the LV is functioning at a lower left atrial pressure but has an increased cardiac output, which is the hemodynamic explanation for the improvement in symptoms, exercise capacity, and reduction of worsening HF with digoxin. Data from 12 randomized trials had shown that the incidence of worsening HF in the nondigitalis group was 24% and in the digitalis group was 5%.1TABLE 1. Beneficial Clinical Effects of Digitalis Therapy for Heart FailureReferences are provided only for randomized trials. For detailed review of each trial that is cited and for nonrandomized studies, please see Reference 1.Clinical improvement6,7,9,12,13,15–17,21,22 Symptoms NYHA functional class HF scoreIncreases exercise capacity Exercise time5,6,12,16,17 Total body O2 consumption on exerciseDecreases frequency of Clinical decompensation (worsening of heart failure)5,7–15,21,22,25 Hospitalization for HF12,21,22,25 Deaths attributable to worsening HF25Reduces costs of treatment of HF23Increases LVEF12,13,17,20–22Reduction of LV dimensions13,19Improves hemodynamics at rest and on exercise Reduces LV filling pressure and mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure Increases CO Reduces ventricular rateReduces elevated neurohormones5,6Improves renal function Reduction of BUN and creatinine21 Increased creatinine clearanceDownload figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Effects of digoxin at rest and on exercise on pulmonary artery (PA) wedge and cardiac index. Adapted with permission from figure in Reference 1.PROVED and RADIANCE TrialsTwo of these small trials are described in further detail. Patients were in New York Heart Association functional classes II and III and had LVEF <0.35. Both of these were digoxin discontinuation trials. The Prospective Randomized study Of Ventricular failure and the Efficacy of Digoxin (PROVED) trial21 was a comparison of digoxin and diuretics versus diuretics; the Randomized Assessment of Digoxin on Inhibitors of the ANgiotensin Converting Enzyme (RADIANCE) trial22 was a comparison of digoxin, diuretics, and ACE-I versus diuretics plus an ACE-I. In the PROVED trial, the digoxin group had a lower incidence of worsening HF and of hospitalization for HF, lower BUN and creatinine levels, a higher LVEF, and better exercise capacity, which was documented objectively. In the RADIANCE trial, the digoxin group had a lower incidence of worsening HF and a better LVEF, quality of life, and exercise capacity, which was documented objectively.Further Analysis From the PROVED and RADIANCE TrialsFurther analysis from the PROVED and RADIANCE trials have shown the following important additional information: (1) Use of digoxin therapy in patients with stable HF would result in net annual savings of $406 million, with a 90% range of probability of $106 to $822 million.23(2) The efficacy of 3 levels of serum digoxin concentration (SDC) of 0.5 to 0.9 mg/mL, >0.9 to ≤1.2 ng/mL, and >1.2 ng/mL with regard to LVEF and patient outcomes were evaluated.24 LVEF fell in patients assigned not to receive digoxin and increased in those who received digoxin (P<0.0001); treadmill times were reduced in those not receiving digoxin and were unchanged in those receiving digoxin (P<0.0001). Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that the risk of worsening HF was significantly less for all 3 subgroups of patients who continued to receive digoxin after adjustment for LVEF, cardiothoracic ratio, age, HF score, and ACE-I use (Figure 3). There was no relation between SDC levels and changes in LVEF, treadmill times, and development of worsening HF. The incidence of worsening HF in the placebo group was 30% and in the 3 digoxin subgroups was 6%, 9%, and 12%, respectively (P<0.02 for no digoxin versus the digoxin subgroups). Download figureDownload PowerPoint Figure 3. Freedom from worsening heart failure in the digoxin-withdrawn group and the digoxin group at 3 levels of SDC. From Reference 24.The Digitalis Investigation Group TrialThe Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial is the largest trial of digitalis.25 It had two parts: the main trial and the ancillary trial.Main TrialIn the main trial, 6800 patients with LVEF ≤0.45 were randomly assigned to digoxin or placebo: The placebo group received diuretics (82%) and ACE-I (95%) and the digoxin group received digoxin, diuretics (81%), and ACE-I (94%). The main findings were that digoxin Had no effect on total mortality ratesReduced incidence of Death or hospitalization caused by worsening HF [P<0.001 (Figure 4); risk ratio was 0.75 in the whole group and was ≤0.80 in all subgroups (Table 2)] Download figureDownload PowerPoint Figure 4. Death or hospitalization caused by worsening HF in the digoxin and placebo groups. Reproduced with permission from Reference 25.TABLE 2. Effect of Digoxin on Occurrence of Death or Hospitalization Caused by Worsening Heart Failure: From the Digitalis Investigation Group Trial (Main Trial)VariableRisk Ratio (95% CI)Reproduced with permission from Reference 25.LVEF 0.25–0.450.80 (0.72 to 0.89) <0.250.68 (0.60 to 0.77)Previous use of digoxin Yes0.74 (0.66 to 0.83) No0.77 (0.68 to 0.86)Cause of HF Ischemic0.79 (0.72 to 0.88) Nonischemic0.67 (0.58 to 0.77)Cardiothoracic ratio ≤0.550.79 (0.71 to 0.88) >0.550.69 (0.61 to 0.78)NYHA functional class I or II0.78 (0.70 to 0.87) III or IV0.70 (0.61 to 0.79)Overall study population0.75 (0.69 to 0.82) Hospitalization for worsening HF (P<0.001) Death caused by worsening HF (P=0.06)Benefits were incremental to use of diuretic and ACE-IAncillary TrialIn the ancillary trial, 988 patients with LVEF >0.45 were randomly assigned to digoxin or placebo. It showed Death or hospitalization for worsening HF was lower in patients assigned to digoxin (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.07) and “were consistent with the findings of the main trial”25Subgroup AnalysisA post hoc subgroup analysis26 showed at the end of 5 years that women had a higher mortality rate than men (33.1% versus 28.9%; absolute difference, 4.2%; 95% CI, −0.5 to 8.8).Digitalis ToxicityIn the DIG trial, “suspected digoxin toxicity” was diagnosed in 11.9% in the digoxin-treated group and 7.9% in the placebo groups. Hospitalization for “suspected digoxin toxicity” in the two groups was 2.0% and 0.9%, respectively.25Serum digoxin concentration in the digoxin group was >2.0 ng/mL in 2% and was 1.5 to 2.0 ng/mL in 5%.29 SDC ≥2.0 ng/mL was present in 2.3% of men and 3.4% of women 1 month after random assignment.26 The incidence of digoxin-induced arrhythmia at a level of 1.7 ng/mL is 10% and at 2.5 ng/mL is 50%, which increases with increasing blood levels.27 Thus, digoxin toxicity may have accounted for excess deaths in women and for deaths ascribed as not caused by HF in the DIG main trial.HF With Normal LVEFIn patients with HF and normal LVEF (≥0.50), there are virtually no good studies documenting that digitalis therapy is not of value. On the other hand, there are data to show that In people with normal heart and in those with coronary artery disease but with normal LVEF,1 digitalis Increases myocardial contractility1 Moves LV function curve upward and to the left1 Reduces LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes1The Ancillary part of the DIG trial25 showed that in those with HF and LVEF >0.45, the incidence of death or hospitalization for worsening HF was reduced and was consistent with the findings in the main trial.Digitalis attenuates sympathetic nerve activity, and this precedes the hemodynamic effects.1,4 In other words, there is dissociation between the neuroendocrine and hemodynamic effects. Thus, it is possible that even if the beneficial hemodynamic effects are attenuated or are absent, digitalis therapy may still have some beneficial effects.Good studies are needed in patients with HF and normal LVEF.American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Chronic Heart FailureThe American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Chronic Heart Failure gives digitalis therapy for clinical HF a class 1 grading (that is, conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure/therapy is useful and effective) and gives level of evidence an A classification (that is, the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials).28RecommendationDigitalis was recommended for the treatment of symptoms of HF unless contraindicated. In other words, all patients with clinical HF (that is, those in NYHA functional classes II-IV) and LV systolic dysfunction should receive digitalis, unless contraindicated.Advantages of Digitalis Therapy in Clinical HFStood test of time (in use 228 years)Given orally, once a dayEasily toleratedSide effects infrequentHas multiple actions: all mildHas multiple beneficial clinical effects (Table 1)InexpensiveReduces costs of treating heart failureβ-Blockers, ACE-I, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, Aldosterone BlockersIn randomized trials of β-adrenergic receptor blockers (β-blockers),29–31 the patients in the β-blocker group also received digitalis (53%, 64%, 67%), diuretics (98%, 90% and 99%), ACE-I (96%, 96%), or ACE-I/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (96%). In randomized trials of ACE-I,32–34 patients in the ACE-I group also received digitalis (92%, 66%, “optimal” dose) and diuretics (100%, 95%, “optimal” dose).A meta-analysis of randomized trials of ARBs in heart failure showed that ARBs were not superior to ACE-I with regard to reducing all-cause mortality rates or hospitalization of HF.35 A more recent trial36 also showed that ARBs were not superior to ACE-I in the treatment of heart failure or LV dysfunction after myocardial infarction. In the Randomized ALdactone (spironolactone) Evaluation Study for congestive heart failure (RALES) trial,37 patients in the spironolactone group received digoxin (75%), diuretics (100%), ACE-I/ARB (95%), and β-blockers (11%). Moreover, in the subgroup analysis of the RALES trial, patients who were in the spironolactone group the benefit was not statistically significant in the patients who did not receive digoxin or ACE-I.In a small diuretics withdrawal trial,38 patients who were “stable” only with the use of diuretics were randomly assigned to diuretics versus ACE-I. In the ACE-I group, 28.6% of patients had deteriorated within 8 to 33 days, with occurrence of pulmonary edema and “increasing breathlessness.”Thus, it is scientifically and clinically correct that Digitalis trials were performed before trials of β-blockers and ARBsACE-I have been shown to improve survival when combined with diuretics and digitalisβ-Blockers have been shown to improve survival when combined with diuretics, digitalis, and ACE-ISpironolactone has been shown to improve survival when combined with diuretics, digitalis, and ACE-I. The beneficial effect on survival with spironolactone is not known if patients are already being treated with digitalis, diuretics, ACE-I, and β-blockers.First-Line Pharmacological Therapy for Clinical HFDigitalis is part of the first-line therapy for patients with clinical HF and LV systolic dysfunction. It should be combined with diuretics and ACE-I. β-Blockers (bisoprolol, metoprolol CR/XL, and carvedilol)29–31 are to be used in “stable patients.”28Suggestions for Use of Digoxin in HFIntravenous digoxin is rarely needed in routine clinical practice. Intravenous digoxin, if necessary, should be given slowly over a period of 20 to 30 minutes.Ideal SDC is 0.7 to 1.1 ng/mL and almost never exceeds 1.3 ng/mL.In most patients, one can start with oral digoxin 0.25 mg OD and estimate SDC at end of 5 days.Digoxin is eliminated primarily through the kidney. In older patients and those with known or suspected renal dysfunction, estimate creatinine clearance rapidly by using the Crockroft and Gault39 formula: Creatinine clearance (CLcr) = [(140−age) + (weight in kg)] ÷ [72 × serum creatinine (in mg/L)]. Multiply the CLcr by 0.85 for women. CLcr ≥90 use normal dosage; CLcr 60 to 89, can start with digoxin 0.125 OD [estimate SDC at 5 days*]; CLcr 30 to 59, can start with digoxin 0.125 mg every other day [estimate SDC on fourth day*]; CLcr ≤29, extremely cautious with use of digoxin. *Repeat as frequently as appropriate until levels of SDC are stable and in the acceptable range. SDC is usually estimated at least 6 hours after the last oral dose.This article is dedicated to the memory of W. Thomas Smith, MD, and Richard Gorlin, MD, who made major contributions to our knowledge of digitalis therapy and were the principal force behind the DIG trial.FootnotesCorrespondence to Shahbudin H. Rahimtoola, MD, University of Southern California, 2025 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90033. References 1 Rahimtoola SH, Tak T. The use of digitalis in heart failure. Curr Probl Cardiol. 1996; 21: 781–756.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Khand AU, Rankin AC, Martin W, et al. Carvedilol alone or in combination with digoxin for the management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 1944–1951.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Mason DT, Braunwald E. Studies on digitalis: effects of ouabain on systemic vascular resistance and venous tone in normal subjects and in patients in heart failure. J Clin Invest. 1964; 43: 532–543.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Gheorghiade M, Ferguson D. Digoxin: a neurohumoral modulator in heart failure? Circulation. 1991; 84: 2181–2186.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 van Veldhuisen DJ, Veld AJM, Dunselman PHJM, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled study of ibopamine and digoxin in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: results of the Dutch Ibopamine Multicenter Trial (DIMT). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 22: 1564–1573.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Alicandri C, Fariello R, Boni E, et al. Captopril versus digoxin in mild-moderate chronic heart failure: a crossover study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25: 289–294.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Dobbs SM, Kenyon WI, Dobbs RJ. Maintenance digoxin after an episode of heart failure: placebo controlled trial in outpatients. BMJ. 1977; 1: 749–752.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Fleg JL, Gottlieb SH, Lakatta EG. Is digoxin really important in the treatment of compensated heart failure? A placebo-controlled crossover study in patients with normal sinus rhythm. Am J Med. 1982; 73: 224–250.Google Scholar9 Lee DC-S, Johnson RA, Bingham JB, et al. Heart failure in outpatients: a randomized trial of digoxin versus placebo. N Engl J Med. 1982; 306: 699–705.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Taggart AJ, Johnston GD, McDevitt DG. Digoxin withdrawal after cardiac failure in patients in sinus rhythm. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1983; 5: 229–234.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Boman K. Digoxin and the geriatric inpatient: a randomized trial of digoxin versus placebo. Acta Med Scand. 1983; 214: 353–360.MedlineGoogle Scholar12 Captopril-Digoxin Multicenter Research Group. Comparative effects of therapy with captopril and digoxin in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. JAMA. 1988; 259: 539–544.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJJ, Fallen EL, et al. A controlled trial of digoxin in congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1988; 61: 371–375.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 German and Austrian Xamoterol Study Group. Double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of digoxin and xamoterol in chronic heart failure. Lancet. 1988; 1: 489–493.MedlineGoogle Scholar15 Pugh SE, White NJ, Aronson JK, et al. Clinical, haemodynamic, and pharmacological effects of withdrawal and reintroduction of digoxin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm after long-term treatment. Br Heart J. 1989; 61: 529–539.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Beaune J. Comparison of enalapril versus digoxin for congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 63: 22D–25D.MedlineGoogle Scholar17 DiBianco R, Shabetai R, Kostuk W, et al. A comparison of oral milrinone, digoxin and their combination in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320: 677–683.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Kromer EP, Elsner D, Riegger GAJ. Digoxin, converting enzyme inhibition (quinapril) and the combination in patients with congestive heart failure functional class II and sinus rhythm. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1990; 16: 9–14.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Davies RF, Beanlands DS, Nadeau C, et al. Enalapril versus digoxin in patients with congestive heart failure: a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 18: 1602–1609.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Fleg JL, Rothfeld B, Gottlieb SH, et al. Effect of maintenance digoxin therapy on aerobic performance and exercise left ventricular function in mild to moderate heart failure due to coronary artery disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 17: 753–755.Google Scholar21 Uretsky BF, Young JB, Shahidi FE, et al. Randomized study assessing the effect of digoxin withdrawal in patients with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure: results of the PROVED Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 22: 955–962.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Packer M, Gheorghiade M, Young JB, et al. Withdrawal of digoxin from patients with chronic heart failure treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 1–7.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23 Ward RE, Gheorghiade M, Young JB, et al. Economic outcomes of withdrawal of digoxin in therapy in adult patients with stable congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 26: 93–101.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24 Adams KF Jr, Gheorghiade M, Uretsky BF, et al. Clinical benefits of low serum digoxin concentration in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 946–953.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25 Digitalis Investigation Group. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 525–533.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26 Rathore SS, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. Sex-based differences in the effect of digoxin on the treatment of heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 1403–1411.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27 Thummel KE, Shen DD. Design and optimization of dosage regimens: Pharmacokinetic data. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, eds. Goodman and Gilman’s: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Gilman AG 10th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill; 2001:1917–1923.Google Scholar28 Hunt SA, Baker DW, Clin MH, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 2101–2113.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29 CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS II): a randomized trial. Lancet. 1999; 353: 9–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar30 MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Randomized International Trial in congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999; 353: 2001–2007.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31 Packer M, Coats AJS, Fowler MB, et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1651–1658.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar32 Consensus Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 1429–1435.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33 SOLVD Investigators. Effects of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325: 293–302.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar34 Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide nitrate in the treatment of congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325: 303–310.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar35 Jang P, Demers C, McKelvie RS, et al. Angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 463–470.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar36 Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJV, Velazquez EJ, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction or both. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 1893–1906.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar37 Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 709–717.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar38 Richardson A, Scriven AJ, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. Double-blind comparison of captopril alone against frusemide plus amiloride in mild heart failure. Lancet. 1987; 2: 709–711.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar39 Crockroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976; 16: 31–41.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ahmadi-Lahijani M and Moori S (2022) Current Status of Medicinal Plants in Perspective of Environmental Challenges and Global Climate Changes Environmental Challenges and Medicinal Plants, 10.1007/978-3-030-92050-0_1, (1-28), . Crezee T, Tesselaar M, Nagarajah J, Corver W, Morreau J, Pritchard C, Kimura S, Kuiper J, van Engen-van Grunsven I, Smit J, Netea-Maier R and Plantinga T (2021) Digoxin treatment reactivates in vivo radioactive iodide uptake and correlates with favorable clinical outcome in non‐medullary thyroid cancer, Cellular Oncology, 10.1007/s13402-021-00588-y, 44:3, (611-625), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021. D’Amario D, Camilli M, Migliaro S, Canonico F, Galli M, Arcudi A, Montone R, Borovac J, Crea F and Savarese G (2020) Sex-Related Differences in Dilated Cardiomyopathy with a Focus on Cardiac Dysfunction in Oncology, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-020-01377-z, 22:10, Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Picollo C, Santos A, Antonio E, Silva J, Bocalini D, Serra A, Ihara S and Tucci P (2019) Digitoxin Attenuates Heart Failure, Reduces Myocardial Hypertrophy, and Preserves the Calcium-Binding Proteins in Infarcted Rats, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 10.1177/1074248419887708, 25:3, (265-272), Online publication date: 1-May-2020. Gupta A, Singh P, Singh P, Singh K, Singh A, Singh S and Kumar A (2019) Medicinal Plants Under Climate Change: Impacts on Pharmaceutical Properties of Plants Climate Change and Agricultural Ecosystems, 10.1016/B978-0-12-816483-9.00008-6, (181-209), . Kodani E, Inoue H, Atarashi H, Okumura K, Yamashita T and Origasa H (2019) Impact of Digitalis Use on Mortality in Japanese Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation ― A Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry ―, Circulation Journal, 10.1253/circj.CJ-19-0267, 83:8, (1644-1652), Online publication date: 25-Jul-2019. Tesselaar M, Crezee T, Schuurmans I, Gerrits D, Nagarajah J, Boerman O, van Engen–van Grunsven I, Smit J, Netea–Maier R and Plantinga T (2017) Digitalislike Compounds Restore hNIS Expression and Iodide Uptake Capacity in Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 10.2967/jnumed.117.200675, 59:5, (780-786), Online publication date: 1-May-2018. Pessôa M, Barbosa L and Villar J (2018) Synthesis of Cardiac Steroids and Their Role on Heart Failure and Cancer , 10.1016/B978-0-444-64057-4.00003-X, (79-113), . Yan X, Xun M, Wu L, Du X, Zhang F and Zheng J (2018) DRm217 attenuates myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury via stabilizing plasma membrane Na + -K + -ATPase, inhibiting Na + -K + -ATPase/ROS pathway and activating PI3K/Akt and ERK1/2, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 10.1016/j.taap.2018.04.030, 349, (62-71), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018. Michalak M, Michalak K and Wicha J (2017) The synthesis of cardenolide and bufadienolide aglycones, and related steroids bearing a heterocyclic subunit, Natural Product Reports, 10.1039/C6NP00107F, 34:4, (361-410) Kumar V, Khare T, Arya S, Shriram V and Wani S (2017) Effects of Toxic Gases, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, and Wastes on Plant Secondary Metabolism Medicinal Plants and Environmental Challenges, 10.1007/978-3-319-68717-9_5, (81-96), . Yan X, Xun M, Dou X, Wu L, Zhang F and Zheng J (2017) Activation of Na+-K+-ATPase with DRm217 attenuates oxidative stress-induced myocardial cell injury via closing Na+-K+-ATPase/Src/Ros amplifier, Apoptosis, 10.1007/s10495-016-1342-2, 22:4, (531-543), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017. Oishi H, Takaoka Y, Nishimaki-Mogami T, Saito H and Ueda M (2017) A Novel Nuclear Receptor Ligand, Digoxigenin, is a Selective Antagonist of Liver-X-receptors, Chemistry Letters, 10.1246/cl.161071, 46:3, (313-314), Online publication da" @default.
• W2130057013 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2130057013 creator A5087673809 @default.
• W2130057013 date "2004-06-22" @default.
• W2130057013 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2130057013 title "Digitalis Therapy for Patients in Clinical Heart Failure" @default.
• W2130057013 cites W1550111394 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W1963719703 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W1972241980 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W1989097434 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W1993672773 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2012514947 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2018879787 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2023582771 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2026365297 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2044322145 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2045341488 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2046383587 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2047651173 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2056668107 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2059697928 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2061713982 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2069653988 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2091744415 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2098834360 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2106203125 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2116062810 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2137159337 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2138396513 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2154100268 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2168907840 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2296998040 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2323458614 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2330699098 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2585382523 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W2945068164 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W3023522280 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W4245244523 @default.
• W2130057013 cites W52877415 @default.
• W2130057013 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000132477.32438.03" @default.
• W2130057013 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15210610" @default.
• W2130057013 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2130057013 type Work @default.
• W2130057013 sameAs 2130057013 @default.
• W2130057013 citedByCount "74" @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132012 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132013 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132014 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132015 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132016 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132017 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132018 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132019 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132020 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132021 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132022 @default.
• W2130057013 countsByYear W21300570132023 @default.
• W2130057013 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2130057013 hasAuthorship W2130057013A5087673809 @default.
• W2130057013 hasBestOaLocation W21300570131 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C2776445394 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C126322002 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C164705383 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C177713679 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C2776445394 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C2778198053 @default.
• W2130057013 hasConceptScore W2130057013C71924100 @default.
• W2130057013 hasIssue "24" @default.
• W2130057013 hasLocation W21300570131 @default.
• W2130057013 hasLocation W21300570132 @default.
• W2130057013 hasOpenAccess W2130057013 @default.
• W2130057013 hasPrimaryLocation W21300570131 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2026356621 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2059504880 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2074659607 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2125804349 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2316503190 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2364214674 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2402351489 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2412456273 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W2994436589 @default.
• W2130057013 hasRelatedWork W348544637 @default.
• W2130057013 hasVolume "109" @default.
• W2130057013 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2130057013 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2130057013 magId "2130057013" @default.
• W2130057013 workType "article" @default.