Carvedilol Versus Verapamil in Chronic Heart Failure Secondary to Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

October 17, 2006 updated by: Medical University of Silesia

Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Therapy With Verapamil or Carvedilol on Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure Secondary to Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Accumulated clinical and experimental data suggest that dysfunctional coronary microcirculation plays a pivotal role in the progression of heart failure despite an optimal therapy used. Therefore, we hypothesize that improvement in microvascular function by calcium antagonist, verapamil may result in additional clinical benefit. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the effect of treatment with verapamil or carvedilol on long-term outcomes in stable, chronic heart failure secondary to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Unknown

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Heart failure, irrespective of its etiology may be viewed as a progressive disorder initiated by a different events and sustained by a multifaceted pathophysiological mechanisms. Regardless of the nature of the initiating events and optimized therapy used, loss of functioning cardiac myocytes developed and the disease progressed. One potential explanation for such progression is that not all pathological mechanisms underlying the disease are antagonized enough by currently used therapeutic strategy. Accordingly, impaired myocardial perfusion secondary to microvascular dysfunction has been postulated to play a major role in the progression of heart failure despite standard therapy for heart failure (1). It has been hypothesized that diffuse subendocardial ischemia due to altered coronary physiology may contribute to the global cardiac dysfunction seen in heart failure patients (2). Accordingly, coronary endothelial dysfunction at the microvascular and epicardial level in patients with acute-onset idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and chronic congestive heart failure has been reported (3,4) Thus, taking all mentioned above into account, the improvement in endothelial function and diminishing of subendocardial ischemia with calcium antagonists may be promising in terms of using these drugs for therapy of patients with stable chronic heart failure. The previous randomized study (5) and our long-term pilot study support this point of view.

  1. Neglia D, Michelassi C, Trivieri MG, et al. Prognostic role of myocardial blood flow impairment in idiopathic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 2002;105:186-193.
  2. Unverferth DV, Magorien RD, Lewis RP, et al. The role of subendocardial ischemia in perpetuating myocardial failure in patients with nonischemic congestive cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J 1983;105:176-179.
  3. Mathier MA, Rose GA, Fifer MA, et al. Coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with acute-onset idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:216-224.
  4. Chong AY, Blann AD, Patel J, et al. Endothelial dysfunction and damage in congestive heart failure. Relation of flow-mediated dilation to circulating endothelial cells, plasma indexes of endothelial damage, and brain natriuretic peptide. Circulation 2004;110:1794-1798.
  5. Figulla HR, Gietzen F, Zeymer U, et al. Diltiazem improves cardiac function and exercise capacity in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Results of diltiazem in dilated cardiomyopathy trial. Circulation 1996;94:346-352.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
120

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Poland
      • Zabrze, Poland, 41-800
        • Recruiting
        • Silesian Center for Heart Disease, IIIrd Department of Cardiology, Silesian Medical University
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Romuald Wojnicz, MD, PhD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Jolanta Nowak, MD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Krzysztof Wilczek, MD
        • Contact:
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Ewa Nowalany-Kozielska, MD, PhD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Bożena Szyguła-Jurkiewicz, MD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Chronic heart failure (NYHA II and III; LV ejection fraction, ≤ 35%) secondary to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Stable condition at least 6 months before enrollment on conventional therapy (beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and diuretics).

Exclusion Criteria:

  • improvement in clinical status on conventional therapy in out-patients period preceded hospitalization
  • any changes narrowing epicardial coronary arteries in coronary angiography,
  • insulin dependent diabetes,
  • valvular heart disease (except the relative mitral regurgitation),
  • endocrine disease,
  • lack of written informed consent,
  • significant renal and liver diseases,
  • drug or alcohol abuse,
  • therapy with steroids or calcium blockers within 3 months before screening

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
NT-proBNP; LVEF(radionuclide ventriculography; LVFS; LVDD/LVSD, NYHA class, V02, 6 min walking test, MLWHFQ.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Death; Heart transplantation; Readmission to hospital.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Medical University of Silesia

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Romuald Wojnicz, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
January 1, 2006

Study Completion

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
December 1, 2007

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 3, 2006

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 3, 2006

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
July 4, 2006

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
October 18, 2006

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 17, 2006

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
January 1, 2006

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • CavsBe.2006

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings