scholarly journals Head-to-head comparison of clinical, biochemical and functional effects of fosinopril and enalapril in patients with systolic heart failure

2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petar Otasevic ◽  
Biljana Putnikovic ◽  
Zelimir Vukajlovic ◽  
Bojan Ilisic ◽  
Aleksandar Neskovic
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Event Free Survival ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Introduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term clinical, bio?chemical and functional effects of fosinopril versus enalapril in patients with heart failure. Material and methods. 59 consecutive patients (mean age 57?8 years, EF 18.9?6.3%, NYHA III or IV class 19/59) -were randomized to receive fosinopril or enalapril for three months. All patients underwent echocardiography, metabolic testing, and a 6-minute walk test and completed the Minnesota questionnaire on inclusion and three months later. Additionally, serum creatinine, BUN, total cholesterol and triglycerides were measured. Kaplan-Meier curve was created to assess event-free survival for cardiac death and hospitalization for heart failure. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in event-free survival between patients on fosinopril and enalapril (86.7% vs. 82.8%, log rank 4.21 p=0.43). However, time to the event was longer in patients on fosinopril (77.0?25.35 vs. 40.2?6.8days, p=0.04). At the end of the study, no difference between fosinopril and enalapril group existed with respect to maximal oxygen consumption (20.90?4.47 vs. 20.89?6.86 ml/kg/mm), ejection fraction (20.5?7.4 vs. 2L4?7.8%), distance during the 6-minute test walk (313?74 vs. 352?129 meters) and quality of life (23.8?15.8 vs. 25.6?20.3 points), but patients on enalapril had higher creatinine (99?13 vs. 113?17 umol/L, p=0.002) and BUN (7.28?1.7vs. 8.89?2.39 mmol/L, p=0.01) levels. Increase in fosinopril dose during the study was higher than increase in enalapril dose (24.1%?23.8% vs. 9.5?24.5%, p=0.04). Conclusions. Fosinopril and enalapril have similar short-term effects on event-free survival, ejection fraction, functional capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Patients on fosinopril presented with longer survival without event and had lower creatinine and BUN at the end of the follow-up. Additionally, fosinopril can be easily titrated to the maximum therapeutic dose. .

scholarly journals The effect of educational intervention based on Pender's health promotion model on quality of life and health promotion in patients with heart failure: an experimental study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Habibzadeh ◽  
Akram Shariati ◽  
Farshad Mohammadi ◽  
Salman Babayi
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Health Promotion Model ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Health Promoting ◽  
Pender's Health Promotion Model

Abstract Background Heart failure is a common and chronic heart condition with high prevalence and mortality rates. This debilitating disease as an important predictor of health outcomes is directly related to patients' quality of life. Given that one of the main goals of heart failure treatment is to promote patients' quality of life and health status, conducting effective nursing interventions seems to be necessary in this regard. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the effect of educational intervention based on Pender's health promotion model on quality of life and health promotion in patients with heart failure. Methods This is an experimental study in which a total of 80 patients with heart failure were recruited and randomly allocated to two groups of intervention and control (n = 40 in each group). The educational program was designed based on Pender's health promotion model and then provided for the patients in the intervention four subgroups (10 person in each group) during six sessions. Data were collected at three time-points of before, immediately after, and three months after the intervention using a demographic questionnaire, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II). Data were then analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA) and p value less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results Based on the results of the present study, no statistically significant difference was shown in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. It was also indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of all dimensions of quality of life (except in the physical dimension) between the two groups so that the overall mean score of quality of life increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention (p < .05). Moreover, there were significant increases in the mean scores of health-promoting behaviors (except in the domain of physical activity) in the intervention group compared to the control group (p < .05) after intervention. Conclusions This study demonstrates a trend that Pender's health promotion model is effective in improving the quality of life of patients with heart failure except of the physical dimension, and strengthening their health-promoting behaviors in all dimensions except of the physical activity dimension.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document