| heart failure | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| BEST, 2001 | bucindolol vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.88 [0.78; 1.00] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.84 [0.76; 0.92] | | all cause death 0.92 [0.82; 1.02] | | Pollock, 1990 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | | Woodley, 1991 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | | Bristow, 1994 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | | MERIT-HF (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bucindolol vs placebo | All cause death 0.70 [0.53; 0.92] | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| BEST, 2001 | bucindolol titrated to 50mg txice daily (n=1354) vs. placebo (n=1354) | patients with heart failure NYHA class III or IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 percent or lower | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1354/1354 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 2 years | | Pollock, 1990 | bucindolol target dose 100mg twice daily (n=12) vs. placebo (n=7) | Patienst with stable, chronic heart failure with a dilated cardiomyopathy due to ischemic or isopathic causes | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 12/7 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance, hemodynamics FU duration: 3 months | | Woodley, 1991 | bucindolol (n=29) vs. placebo (n=29) | NYHA 2-3, IDC/CAD | Sample size: 29/29 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance, hemodynamics FU duration: 3 mo | | Bristow, 1994 | bucindolol (n=105) vs. placebo (n=34) | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Sample size: 105/34 Primary endpoint: Functional class FU duration: 3 mo | | MERIT-HF (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bucindolol (n=1330) vs. placebo (n=0) | Patients aged 65 years and olderwith chronic heart failure in NYHA functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy | Sample size: 1330/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
