A comparison of oral milrinone, digoxin, and their combination in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure. Randomized study assessing the effect of digoxin withdrawal in patients with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure: results of the PROVED trial. PROVED Investigative Group. Exercise capacity and quality of life in the treatment of heart failure. Clinical, haemodynamic, and pharmacological effects of withdrawal and reintroduction of digoxin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm after long term treatment. 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). Digoxin withdrawal after cardiac failure in patients with sinus rhythm. Heart failure in outpatients: a randomized trial of digoxin versus placebo. Comparative effects of therapy with captopril and digoxin in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. The Captopril-Digoxin Multicenter Research Group. Is digoxin really important in treatment of compensated heart failure? A placebo-controlled crossover study in patients with sinus rhythm. Withdrawal of digoxin from patients with chronic heart failure treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. RADIANCE Study.
We randomly assigned 230 patients in sinus rhythm with moderately severe heart failure to treatment with digoxin, milrinone, both, or placebo. The effects of each were compared during a 12-week, double-blind trial. Treatment with milrinone or digoxin significantly increased treadmill exercise time as compared with placebo (by 82 and 64 seconds respectively; 95 percent confidence limits, 44 and 123, and 30 and 100). Both treatments reduced the frequency of decompensation from heart failure, from 47 percent with placebo to 34 percent with milrinone (P less than 0.05; 95 percent confidence limits, 22 and 46) and 15 percent with digoxin (P less than 0.01; 95 percent confidence limits, 7 and 26). However, the clinical condition of 20 percent of the patients taking milrinone deteriorated within two weeks after treatment was begun, as compared with only 3 percent of those taking digoxin (P less than 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction at rest was not significantly changed by milrinone (+0.2 percent; 95 percent confidence limits, -1.5 and 1.9), but it was increased by digoxin (+1.7 percent; P less than 0.01; 95 percent confidence limits, -0.03 and 3.4) and decreased by placebo (-2.0 percent; 95 percent confidence limits, -3.8 and -0.1). Three-month survival was related inversely to the base-line ejection fraction. Analysis of mortality from all causes according to the intention to treat suggested an adverse effect of milrinone (P = 0.064). After adjustment for an excess of patients with lower ejection fractions randomly assigned to receive milrinone, this trend was not significant (P = 0.26). Increased ventricular arrhythmias occurred more frequently in patients who received milrinone than in those who did not (18 vs. 4 percent; P less than 0.03). We conclude that milrinone significantly increased exercise tolerance and reduced the frequency of worsened heart failure. However, in the population of patients studied, milrinone or the combination of milrinone and digoxin offered no advantage over digoxin alone. Furthermore, our data suggest that milrinone may aggravate ventricular arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to determine whether digoxin is effective in patients with chronic, stable mild to moderate heart failure.
                Digoxin has been a traditional therapy in heart failure, but methodologic limitations in earlier studies have prevented definitive conclusions regarding its efficacy.
                Withdrawal of digoxin (placebo group, n = 46) or its continuation (digoxin group, n = 42) was performed in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of patients with chronic, stable mild to moderate heart failure secondary to left ventricular systolic dysfunction who had normal sinus rhythm and were receiving long-term treatment with diuretic drugs and digoxin.
                Patients withdrawn from digoxin therapy showed worsened maximal exercise capacity (median change in exercise time -96 s) compared with that of patients who continued to receive digoxin (change in exercise time +4.5 s) (p = 0.003). Patients withdrawn from digoxin therapy showed an increased incidence of treatment failures (p = 0.039) (39%, digoxin withdrawal group vs. 19%, digoxin maintenance group) and a decreased time to treatment failure (p = 0.037). In addition, patients who continued to receive digoxin had a lower body weight (p = 0.044) and heart rate (p = 0.003) and a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.016).
                These data provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of digoxin in patients with normal sinus rhythm and mild to moderate chronic heart failure secondary to systolic dysfunction who are treated with diuretics. In a double-blind study comparing two active treatments (digoxin and xamoterol) and placebo in patients with heart failure, improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life were observed in all three groups, with no significant differences. The substantial benefits seen in the placebo group were probably the result of increased attention from the medical and research staff and suggest the therapeutic value of special heart failure clinics. The relationship between exercise and symptomatic/functional status has been unclear. We developed quantitative measures of quality-of-life variables and examined their relationship with exercise capacity. There were significant relationships between change in exercise duration and changes in breathlessness, tiredness, chest pain, walking difficulty, rate of walking, difficulty with daily tasks, speed of daily tasks, mood, and sleeping. This study confirms the validity of measuring change in exercise capacity and demonstrates that specific measurements of quality of life make an important contribution to the evaluation of the treatment of heart failure. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover study of digoxin withdrawal and reintroduction was carried out over two periods of eight weeks each after long term treatment. Forty four patients with stable heart failure in sinus rhythm and plasma digoxin concentrations over 0.8 ng/ml were studied. Their progress was assessed by clinical criteria, by haemodynamic measurements (systolic time intervals and echocardiography), and by pharmacological measurements of erythrocytic sodium pump numbers and activity. After withdrawal of digoxin clinical deterioration occurred in only 25% of the patients. Furthermore, in only 9% of cases was digoxin reintroduction thought to be necessary. There was deterioration in only 11% of the patients during digoxin treatment. Deterioration during digoxin withdrawal was accompanied by changes in systolic time intervals, but similar, albeit smaller changes in systolic time intervals also occurred in patients with no deterioration. Deterioration was accompanied by changes in the pharmacological effects of digoxin on the erythrocytes, consistent with a loss of effect, and these changes did not occur in those who did not deteriorate. The occurrence of deterioration could not be predicted by any clinical, haemodynamic, or pharmacological measurements made before withdrawal. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with the orally active dopamine agonist ibopamine in patients with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure and to compare the results with those of treatment with digoxin and placebo.
                Ibopamine and digoxin are drugs that exert hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects. Because there is accumulating evidence that progression of disease in chronic heart failure is related not only to hemodynamic but also to neurohumoral factors, both drugs might be expected to have a favorable long-term effect.
                We studied 161 patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure (80% in New York Heart Association functional class II and 20% in class III), who were treated with ibopamine (n = 53), digoxin (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53) for 6 months. Background therapy consisted of furosemide (0 to 80 mg); all other drugs for heart failure were excluded. Clinical assessments were made at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
                Of the 161 patients, 128 (80%) completed the study. Compared with placebo, digoxin but not ibopamine significantly increased exercise time after 6 months (p = 0.008 by intention to treat analysis). Ibopamine was only effective in patients with relatively preserved left ventricular function, as it significantly increased exercise time in this subgroup (for patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction > 0.30; p = 0.018 vs. placebo). No patient receiving digoxin withdrew from the study because of progression of heart failure, compared with six patients receiving ibopamine and two receiving placebo. At 6 months, plasma norepinephrine was decreased with digoxin and ibopamine therapy (-106 and -13 pg/ml, respectively) but increased with placebo administration (+62 pg/ml) (both p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Plasma aldosterone was unaffected, but renin was decreased by both agents after 6 months (p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Total mortality and ambulatory arrhythmias were not significantly affected by the two drugs.
                Ibopamine and digoxin both inhibit neurohumoral activation in patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure. However, the clinical effects of these drugs are different and appear to be related to the degree of left ventricular dysfunction. A double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial of digoxin withdrawal was undertaken in 22 patients with sinus rhythm who had a previous history of frank heart failure and were taking therapeutic doses of the drug. During the course of the study, 14 patients showed no clinical change whether taking digoxin or placebo, five patients deteriorated on placebo (four with heart failure and one with supraventricular tachycardia), and three on digoxin (two with heart failure and one with digoxin toxicity). These differences were not statistically significant. Compared to placebo, patients, while taking digoxin, had lower resting heart rates and significant shortening of all the systolic time intervals. The drug appears to exert a sustained positive inotropic effect during maintenance therapy, but this is not of clinical benefit to the majority of patients. The view that digitalis clinically benefits patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm lacks support from a well-controlled study. Using a randomized, double-blind, crossover protocol, we compared the effects of oral digoxin and placebo on the clinical courses of 25 outpatients without atrial fibrillation. According to a clinicoradiographic scoring system, the severity of heart failure was reduced by digoxin in 14 patients; in nine of these 14, improvement was confirmed by repeated trials (five patients) or right-heart catheterization (four patients). The other 11 patients had no detectable improvement from digoxin. Patients who responded to digoxin had more chronic and more severe heart failure, greater left ventricular dilation and ejection-fraction depression, and a third heart sound. Multivariate analysis showed that the third heart sound was the strongest correlate of the response to digoxin (P less than 0.0001). These data suggest that long-term digoxin therapy is clinically beneficial in patients with heart failure unaccompanied by atrial fibrillation whose failure persists despite diuretic treatment and who have a third heart sound. This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compares the effects of captopril treatment with those of digoxin treatment during maintenance diuretic therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. Compared with placebo, captopril therapy resulted in significantly improved exercise time (mean increase, 82 s vs 35 s) and improved New York Heart Association class (41% vs 22%), but digoxin therapy did not. Digoxin treatment increased ejection fraction (4.4% increase) compared with captopril therapy (1.8% increase) and placebo (0.9% increase). The number of ventricular premature beats decreased 45% in the captopril group and increased 4% in the digoxin group in patients with more than ten ventricular premature beats per hour. Treatment failures, increased requirements for diuretic therapy, and hospitalizations were significantly more frequent in patients receiving placebo compared with those receiving either active drug. Transitory hypotension occurred more frequently with administration of captopril. Captopril treatment is significantly more effective than placebo and is an alternative to digoxin therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure who are receiving diuretic maintenance therapy. To assess the efficacy of digitalis in patients with chronic clinically compensated congestive heart failure and normal sinus rhythm, we performed a double-blind crossover study with digoxin and placebo in 30 consecutive outpatients fulfilling these criteria; serum digoxin levels, clinical symptoms and signs, and objective indexes of cardiac function were monitored. No patient's clinical condition deteriorated during three months of placebo administration. Discontinuation of digoxin resulted in a small increase in echocardiographically determined resting left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (1.8 +/- 0.6 mm, p less than 0.001) and a similar decrease in velocity of circumferential fiber shortening (-0.08 +/- 0.04 circ/sec, p less than 0.05) from the corresponding values of 55.8 +/- 2.3 mm and 0.90 +/- 0.08 circ/sec during digitalis therapy. Resting left ventricular ejection time and pre-ejection period were prolonged by digoxin withdrawal. Maximal exercise capacity was unchanged. No clinical exacerbation of heart failure attributable to digitalis withdrawal occurred over a follow-up period averaging 19 months. The results indicate that long-term digoxin therapy has only a minor effect on cardiac performance that is without apparent clinical importance in a representative population of ambulatory patients treated with cardiac glycosides. Although digoxin is effective in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure who are receiving diuretic agents, it is not clear whether the drug has a role when patients are receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, as is often the case in current practice.
                We studied 178 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). The patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion either to continue receiving digoxin (85 patients) or to be switched to placebo (93 patients) for 12 weeks. Otherwise, their medical therapy for heart failure was not changed.
                Worsening heart failure necessitating withdrawal from the study developed in 23 patients switched to placebo, but in only 4 patients who continued to receive digoxin (P < 0.001). The relative risk of worsening heart failure in the placebo group as compared with the digoxin group was 5.9 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.1 to 17.2). All measures of functional capacity deteriorated in the patients receiving placebo as compared with those continuing to receive digoxin (P = 0.033 for maximal exercise tolerance, P = 0.01 for submaximal exercise endurance, and P = 0.019 for New York Heart Association class). In addition, the patients switched from digoxin to placebo had lower quality-of-life scores (P = 0.04), decreased ejection fractions (P = 0.001), and increases in heart rate (P = 0.001) and body weight (P < 0.001).
                These findings indicate that the withdrawal of digoxin carries considerable risks for patients with chronic heart failure and impaired systolic function who have remained clinically stable while receiving digoxin and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors.
The literature indicates that digitalis may have a useful role in the treatment of patients with HF who are in normal sinus rhythm. New trials are needed to elucidate the importance of digitalis dosage, and its usefulness in the era of beta-blockers and other agents shown to be effective in treating HF.