American Heart Journal (AM HEART J)
American Heart Journal has been a trusted resource for cardiologists and general practice physicians for more than 70 years. Now under new editorship, the Journal has refocused its content to respond to the information needs of the cardiology community. In addition to publishing results of important clinical investigations, the Journal addresses such topics as cost-effectiveness, design of clinical trials, reports of negative clinical trials, and the changing organization of medical care. A new feature - AHJ at the Meetings - reports the key findings from major cardiovascular meetings, providing readers with ready access to the most recent clinical research data. Read and respected throughout the world, American Heart Journal ranks in the top 3.7% of the 4,625 scientific journals most frequently cited ( Science Citation Index ).
- Impact factor4.65Show impact factor historyHide impact factor history
- WebsiteAmerican Heart Journal website
Other titlesThe American heart journal, AHJ
Material typePeriodical, Internet resource
Document typeJournal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author can archive a post-print version
- Voluntary deposit by author of pre-print allowed on Institutions open scholarly website and pre-print servers
- Voluntary deposit by author of authors post-print allowed on institutions open scholarly website including Institutional Repository
- Deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental mandate only allowed where separate agreement between repository and publisher exists
- Set statement to accompany deposit
- Published source must be acknowledged
- Must link to journal home page or articles' DOI
- Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
- Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
- NIH Authors articles will be submitted to PMC after 12 months
- Authors who are required to deposit in subject repositories may also use Sponsorship Option
- Pre-print can not be deposited for The Lancet
Publications in this journal
Article: The association between patient race, treatment, and outcomes of patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2)American Heart Journal 04/2013;
American Heart Journal 02/2013; 165:116-122.
Article: Management of acute coronary syndromes in developing countries: ACute Coronary Events—a multinational Survey of current management StrategiesAmerican Heart Journal 11/2011; 162(5):852.e22.
Article: Growth differentiation factor-15: An additional diagnostic tool for the risk stratification of developing heart failure in patients with operated congenital heart defects?American Heart Journal 07/2011; 162(1):131-135.
Article: Rivaroxaban-once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation: rationale and design of the ROCKET AF study.American Heart Journal 03/2010;
American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):384-7.
American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):391-2.
Article: Pediatric hypertension.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):422-32.
American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):433-9.
American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):440-4.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Agents that increase cardiac contractility (positive inotropes) have beneficial hemodynamic effects in patients with acute and chronic heart failure but have frequently led to increased mortality when given on a long-term basis. Despite this fact, inotropes remain commonly used in the management of heart failure. We reviewed the available data on short- and long-term inotrope use in heart failure, emphasizing high-quality evidence on the basis of randomized trials that were powered to address clinical end points. Available data suggest that long-term inotropic therapy has a negative impact on survival in patients with heart failure, regardless of the agent used. The data that inotropic therapy improves quality of life are mixed. High-quality randomized evidence is lacking for the use of inotropes for other heart failure indications, such as for acute decompensations or as a "bridge to transplant." On the basis of the available evidence, the routine use of inotropes as heart failure therapy is not indicated in either the acute or chronic setting. Potentially appropriate uses of inotropes include as temporary treatment of diuretic-refractory acute heart failure decompensations or as a bridge to definitive treatment such as revascularization or cardiac transplantation. Inotropes also may be appropriate as a palliative measure in patients with truly end-stage heart failure. A model of heart failure pathophysiologic features that combines an understanding of both hemodynamic and neurohormonal factors will be required to best develop and evaluate novel treatments for advanced heart failure.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):393-401.
Article: Primary percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with acute myocardial infarction and prior coronary artery bypass grafting.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The outcome of patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unclear. We sought to assess the outcome of patients with prior CABG undergoing primary PCI for the treatment of AMI. Between 1991 and 1997, 1072 patients with AMI underwent primary PCI without antecedent thrombolytic therapy at the Mayo Clinic. There were 128 patients with previous CABG and 944 without previous CABG. Patients with previous CABG were further subdivided according to the treated vessel: native vessels (n = 65) and bypass graft (n = 63). Clinical and angiographic characteristics and 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. Patients with previous CABG were significantly older and had a higher incidence of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia. They had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction and were also more likely to have congestive heart failure. After 1 year of follow-up, adverse cardiac events (death, MI, CABG, or repeat PCI) were significantly greater in patients with prior CABG (49.2% vs 35.9%, P =.04). With use of multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics, the treatment of vein graft was independently associated with adverse cardiac events (relative risk 1.48 [95% confidence interval 1.07-2.03], P =.02), but a history of prior CABG itself was not (relative risk 1.22 [95% confidence interval 0.96-1.56], P =.11). Primary PCI for AMI in patients with previous CABG is associated with higher adverse events largely attributable to adverse baseline clinical characteristics and the treatment of a vein graft.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):452-9.
Article: Challenges of subgroup analyses in multinational clinical trials: experiences from the MERIT-HF trial.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: International placebo-controlled survival trials (Metoprolol Controlled-Release Randomised Intervention Trial in Heart Failure [MERIT-HF], Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study [CIBIS-II], and Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival trial [COPERNICUS]) evaluating the effects of b-blockade in patients with heart failure have all demonstrated highly significant positive effects on total mortality as well as total mortality plus all-cause hospitalization. Also, the analysis of the US Carvedilol Program indicated an effect on these end points. Although none of these trials are large enough to provide definitive results in any particular subgroup, it is natural for physicians to examine the consistency of results across various subgroups or risk groups. Our purpose was to examine both predefined and post hoc subgroups in the MERIT-HF trial to provide guidance as to whether any subgroup is at increased risk, despite an overall strongly positive effect, and to discuss the difficulties and limitations in conducting such subgroup analyses. The study was conducted at 313 clinical sites in 16 randomization regions across 14 countries, with a total of 3991 patients. Total mortality (first primary end point) and total mortality plus all-cause hospitalization (second primary end point) were analyzed on a time to first event. The first secondary end point was total mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure. Overall, MERIT-HF demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.66 for total mortality and 0.81 for mortality plus all-cause hospitalization. The hazard ratio of the first secondary end point of mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure was 0.69. The results were remarkably consistent for both primary outcomes and the first secondary outcome across all predefined subgroups as well as for nearly all post hoc subgroups. The results of the post hoc US subgroup showed a mortality hazard ratio of 1.05. However, the US results regarding both the second primary combined outcome of total mortality plus all-cause hospitalization and of the first secondary combined outcome of total mortality plus heart failure hospitalization were in concordance with the overall results of MERIT-HF. Tests of country by treatment interaction (14 countries) revealed a nonsignificant P value of.22 for total mortality. The mortality hazard ratio for US patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV was 0.80, and it was 2.24 for patients in NYHA class II, which is not consistent with causality by biologic gradient. We have not been able to identify any confounding factor in baseline characteristics, baseline treatment, or treatment during follow-up that could account for any treatment by country interaction. Thus we attribute the US subgroup mortality hazard ratio to be due to chance. Just as we must be extremely cautious in overinterpreting positive effects in subgroups, even those that are predefined, we must also be cautious in focusing on subgroups with an apparent neutral or negative trend. We should examine subgroups to obtain a general sense of consistency, which is clearly the case in MERIT-HF. We should expect some variation of the treatment effect around the overall estimate as we examine a large number of subgroups because of small sample size in subgroups and chance. Thus the best estimate of the treatment effect on total mortality for any subgroup is the estimate of the hazard ratio for the overall trial.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):502-11.
Article: Antiarrhythmic drug use in the implantable defibrillator arm of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Previous retrospective or observational series suggest that many patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will be treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to modify the frequency or manifestation of recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. The relative clinical benefit, however, is uncertain, and deleterious interactions can occur. The objective of this clinical investigation was to study the need for, and effects of, concomitant AAD use with the ICD in a prospectively defined cohort. All patients randomly assigned to the ICD arm of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study were followed for the addition of class I or III AADs ("crossover") after hospital discharge. Addition of AADs was strictly regulated by AVID protocol. The timing and reasons for crossover and the effects on ventricular arrhythmia recurrence were analyzed. Patients were excluded if they required AADs before hospital discharge after index arrhythmias or if they had no ventricular arrhythmia before initiation of AADs. After a median follow-up of 135 days, 81 (18%) of the 461 eligible patients required AADs and formed the crossover group. The primary reason for crossover was frequent ICD shocks in 64% of patients. The most common AAD selected was amiodarone (in 42%). Independent predictors of crossover were lower ejection fraction, absence of ventricular fibrillation, or presence of nonsyncopal ventricular tachycardia at presentation, prior unexplained syncope, female sex, and history of cigarette smoking. Before AAD use, the 1-year arrhythmia event rate was 90%; after AAD, the event rate was only 64% (P =.0001). The time to first event was extended from 3.9 +/- 0.7 months to 11.2 +/- 1.8 months. There were 1.4 +/- 3.7 fewer ICD therapy events (P =.005) after crossover, predominantly accounted for by reduction in shocks rather than antitachycardia pacing therapies. The majority of patients who receive ICDs for sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation can be treated without AADs. Most commonly, AADs are added to combat frequent ICD shocks, which are successfully reduced by AAD therapy.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):520-9.
Article: Percutaneous closure with Amplatzer device is a safe and efficient alternative to surgery in adults with large atrial septal defects.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In adults with atrial septal defect (ASD) and large right-to-left shunt, closure of the defect is recommended. Percutaneous closure is still rarely used in this population. This study presents the results of transcatheter closure with the Amplatzer occluder in such patients. We studied 44 consecutive adult patients with a secundum ASD and 2 of the 3 following criteria: QP/QS >/=2 by oximetry, echocardiographic right ventricle overload, and ASD size >20 mm. Forty-two patients had a successful implantation. In 1 patient an unstable device was withdrawn; in another one, the device embolized in the pulmonary artery. At 6-month median follow-up, 95% had a complete closure; 2 patients with an additional defect had a small residual shunt. Major complications were the aforementioned embolization and a cerebrovascular accident in a patient with atrial fibrillation treated with aspirin. Others were minor and transitory: premature atrial beats in 3 patients, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and pulmonary edema in 1 patient each. Transcatheter closure of large ASDs with the Amplatzer device is efficient with less morbidity than surgical closure.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):544-8.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Stentless aortic valves are associated with a significant decrease in left ventricular hypertrophy. This study examined the time course and factors affecting left ventricular mass regression (LVMR) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Cryolife O'Brien (CLOB) (Cryolife International, Atlanta, Ga) stentless valves. Between 1993 and 2000, 130 consecutive patients underwent AVR with CLOB. Mean age was 71.3 +/- 6.3 years. Sixty-four (49.2%) were male. Mean body surface area (BSA) was 1.7 +/- 0.2 m(2). Mean valve size implanted was 23.6 +/- 2.0 mm. All patients were monitored with serial echocardiograms; the first study was performed preoperatively, and subsequent controls were at 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 years, respectively. Left ventricular mass was calculated by the Devereux formula and indexed by BSA. Analysis of variance showed a significant reduction in the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) over time (P < .001). Most LVMRs occurred within the first 6 months, and after 1 year LVMI had decreased by 37.5% with further, but not statistically significant, reductions at later examinations. We found that baseline BSA > 1.75 m(2), male sex, arterial blood pressure > or = 150 mm Hg, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35%, New York Heart Association functional class > or = III, non-sinus rhythm, and prevalent aortic incompetence to be factors influencing LVMR. LVMR was not related to postoperative effective orifice area < or = 0.85 cm/m(2) and prosthetic size. AVR with a CLOB valve is followed by a significant LVMR that occurs soon after surgery. It is influenced by several patient-related factors: most of them can be predicted preoperatively.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):556-62.
Article: Cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with metoprolol or with carvedilol for treatment of heart failure in Canada.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with either metoprolol or carvedilol in addition to conventional therapy for patients with heart failure (HF) in Canada. A Markov simulation was used to estimate the costs and life expectancy for treating patients with conventional therapy alone and with the addition of metoprolol or carvedilol. Although carvedilol has been marketed in Canada since 1999, metoprolol succinate has yet to be marketed there, so the price is unknown. Therefore we input a Canadian price based on the price ratio of the 2 drugs in the United States. For subjects aged 60 years at HF onset, the expected years of life are 4.53 years for those treated with conventional therapy alone, 5.70 years for those who receive conventional therapy plus metoprolol, and 6.21 years for those who receive conventional therapy plus carvedilol. The expected costs (in 1999 Canadian dollars) are $8,989, $13,833, and $18,114, respectively. This yields incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for metoprolol relative to conventional therapy alone of $4,140 per life-year gained, and for carvedilol relative to metoprolol, the ICER is $8,394 per life-year gained. In addition to conventional therapy with furosemide and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, treatment with either metoprolol or carvedilol confers a survival benefit that is attractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Until better information becomes available, it is not possible to distinguish between the two beta-blockers on the basis of cost-effectiveness. This means that the choice of beta-blockers for HF should be based largely on clinical considerations because both beta-blockers prolong life at relatively low cost.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):537-43.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Early reperfusion after myocardial infarction has been proved to preserve left ventricular function and reduce mortality. However, a significant number of patients have persistent occlusion of the infarct-related artery late (days to weeks) after myocardial infarction because of ineligibility for thrombolytic therapy, failure of reperfusion, or reocclusion. In this report we review the data on the potential mechanisms and benefits of late reperfusion and present prospective data on the incidence of and current practice patterns for the management of persistently occluded infarct-related arteries late after myocardial infarction. Although several studies have associated late patency of the infarct-related artery with improved long-term clinical outcome, they were nonrandomized and reflect selection bias. Furthermore, data on late patency from the largest study, Global Utilization of Steptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Arteries (GUSTO-I), failed to confirm independent benefits of an open infarct-related artery 1 year after myocardial infarction. The randomized data on the effects of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for occluded infarct-related arteries late after myocardial infarction are limited and inconclusive. The hypothesis that late reperfusion by percutaneous coronary intervention days to weeks after myocardial infarction results in improved long-term clinical outcomes in asymptomatic patients with occluded infarct-related artery is currently being tested in the randomized, multicenter Occluded Artery Trial.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):411-21.
Article: The continuation of the Prevention of Events With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) Trial.American Heart Journal 10/2001; 142(3):375-7.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
Nature Publishing Group
ISSN: 1941-7225, Impact factor: 3.18
Foundation for Advances in Medicine...
ISSN: 1932-8737, Impact factor: 2.15
Public Library of Science, Public...
ISSN: 1932-6203, Impact factor: 4.09
ISSN: 1879-1913, Impact factor: 3.58
ISSN: 1874-1754, Impact factor: 7.08
ISSN: 1755-5922, Impact factor: 2.35
ISSN: 1744-7666, Impact factor: 3.2
ScienceDirect (Online service), Elsevier
ISSN: 1579-2242, Impact factor: 2.53