Survival after congestive heart failure in Framingham Heart Study subjects.

W. Kaesemeyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.89.1.506

IF: 37.8

Circulation

Abstract:I am writing about a recent article that appeared in Circulation by Ho et al.1 I have two questions regarding their findings. The first question concerns the observation regarding coronary heart disease as the attributable cause of congestive heart failure (CHF) over the 40-year period of the study. I would like to know if there are data available through the Framingham study for myocardial infarction for each of those four decades. Specifically, what were the number of fatal, nonfatal, and total myocardial infarctions for each of those four decades? I think that these data would be interesting because, as previously pointed out by Teerlink et al,2 I likewise believe that there has been a shift in the etiology of CHF from hypertension to coronary heart disease. I think that this shift is secondary to the previously observed failure to achieve the same reduction in myocardial infarction that was seen in stroke during that period of time when hypertension was principally treated by the use of diuretics.3 If this is the case, nonfatal myocardial infarction should be increasing, since fatal myocardial infarction is decreasing4 and total myocardial infarction is unchanged.4 This would result in an increase in the total number of myocardial infarction survivors in this study population. It is from this pool of myocardial infarction survivors that new cases of CHF are arising. This would explain the observation that no change has occurred in the natural history of CHF over this 40-year period. Most importantly, this would raise a serious new question about the most recent recommendations of Joint National Committee V, which call for a return to the use of diuretics as preferred initial agents in the treatment of hypertension.5 The second question concerns the author's statement that "there was no significant change in the frequency of hypertension as the attributable cause of heart failure during the four decades of observation."' The question is raised in view of a recent publication that describes an increase in the prevalence of hypertension in the Framingham cohort over that time period.6 Specifically, if the prevalence of hypertension in that population has increased over that approximate time period, would one not expect to see an increase in the number of cases of CHF whose attributable cause was hypertension? Would no change in fact represent a relative reduction in cases of CHF secondary to hypertension? And finally, does this not further support the above contention that there has been a shift in the etiology of CHF from hypertension to coronary heart disease?