User login
Evidence builds for AFib ablation’s efficacy in heart failure
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
ATTEST: AFib ablation slows progression to persistence
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC 2019 CONGRESS
Low LDL-C and blood pressure can reduce lifetime CVD risk by 80%
PARIS – Over the course of years and decades, lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure can reduce the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease by up to 80%, according to a new study.
“What we found is that lifetime exposure to the combination of lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure is associated with independent, additive, and dose-dependent effects on the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Brian Ference, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “The data seem to confirm that most cardiovascular events are preventable, and suggest that most cardiovascular events can be prevented, with prolonged exposure to modestly lower LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure.”
Any reduction of LDL-C and systolic blood pressure (SBP), in any combination, was associated with a lower lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the study, which took advantage of the United Kingdom’s large Biobank to identify individuals with genetically lower LDL-C and blood pressure levels. The relationship was dose-dependent and showed a log-linear relationship to the combined absolute LDL-C and SBP differences, said Dr. Ference, professor and executive director of the Centre for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge, England.
The results validate current guidelines that focus on a lifetime approach to cardiovascular risk reduction and support a focus on therapeutic lifestyle interventions for individuals at all levels of risk for cardiovascular events, said Dr. Ference. He foresees the results shaping new risk-estimating algorithms and informing the next round of prevention guidelines.
Previous studies had suggested that long-term exposure to lower levels of LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure reduced cardiovascular risk, but the association hadn’t been fully quantified. Ideally, said Dr. Ference, the question would be answered by a long-term randomized controlled trial, but it would be decades before meaningful data would accrue, and such a trial is unlikely to be conducted.
Using data from 438,952 Biobank participants, Dr. Ference and coinvestigators sought to quantify the association between LDL-C, systolic blood pressure, and atherosclerotic CVD. Taking advantage of genetic variants known to be associated with both lower LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure, the researchers constructed a “natural randomization” trial. This trial design is also known as Mendelian randomization.
First, the entire study population was randomized into those with exome variants associated with higher or lower LDL-C, which resulted in a mean 15-mg/dL difference between the arms. Then, each LDL-C arm was randomized into groups with exome variants associated with higher or lower SBP, resulting in a difference of 2.9-3 mm Hg between the blood pressure arms within each LDL arm. This randomization yielded a reference group, a group with lower LDL-C, a group with lower SBP, and a group with lower LDL-C and SBP.
For the total population, the mean LDL-C was 138 mg/dL, and the mean SBP was 137.8 mm Hg.
A total of 24,980 participants had coronary revascularization, a nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary death – the composite primary outcome measure of major coronary events.
“What we found is that long-term exposure to the combination of 1 mmol/L [about 39 mg/dL] lower LDL and 10 mm/Hg lower blood pressure is associated with an 80% lifetime reduction in risk of cardiovascular events, a 75% reduction in the risk of MI, and 68% reduction in the long-term risk of cardiovascular death,” said Dr. Ference.
By breaking participants out into separate quartiles of LDL-C and SBP levels, and examining outcomes for each quartile independently, Dr. Ference and collaborators were able to ascertain that the salutary effects of lower LDL-C and SBP were independent of each other.
Looking at individual cardiovascular outcomes, “The effect of combined exposure to both lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure appear to be quite similar across multiple composite cardiovascular outcomes,” said Dr. Ference; benefit was seen in risk of MI, stroke, and other vascular events.
Plotting out the amount of risk reduction against the genetic scores for LDL-C and SBP reduction showed a proportional relationship that was logarithmically linear. “These large proportional reductions in risk really suggest that, for LDL, systolic blood pressure, and their combination, the benefit really depends both on the magnitude and the duration of the exposure,” said Dr. Ference. The effect was seen regardless of age, gender, body mass index, and diabetes status; being a smoker slightly attenuated the effects of LDL-C and SBP.
The mean participant age was 65 years, and women made up 54% of the study population. Aside from lipid values and systolic blood pressure, there were no significant between-group differences.
From these findings, what message can clinicians take to their patients? “Benefit is a much greater motivator, rather than the nebulous concept of risk,” said Dr. Ference. “So if we begin to crystallize and give an estimate of how much someone can benefit – either from adhering to a healthy lifestyle, with specific goals for LDL and blood pressure reductions, or from encouraging them to remain compliant with their therapies, achieving those corresponding goals – we can quantify their expected clinical benefit and encourage them to invest in their health over the long term.”
Dr. Ference said that the actual mechanism by which lipids and blood pressure are lowered matters less than the amount and duration of lowering: “These data are really agnostic as to the mechanism by which either blood pressure or LDL – or apo-B–containing lipoproteins generally – and blood pressure are reduced. It really suggests that whatever mechanism by which an individual person can most effectively lower their LDL and blood pressure, that’s the best one for that person, if they can maintain that over time.”
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships, including research contracts, consulting arrangements, receipt of royalties, and being an owner or stockholder of more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and Medical Research Council, and by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Ference B. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Hot Line Session 3.
Jemma Hopewell, PhD, was the assigned discussant for the Mendelian randomization study of LDL-C and SBP’s effects on cardiovascular health. She placed the genetic epidemiological study within the framework of other short- and medium-term studies that have examined the effects of LDL-C and SBP on cardiovascular health.
“Let’s think about this in the context of other studies,” said Dr. Hopewell, asking what the study adds to what’s known about exposure to LDL-C and systolic blood pressure levels. Shorter-term clinical trials that tracked differences in LDL-C over about 5 years have shown a 20%-25% drop in cardiovascular risk, while medium-term observational studies have shown a decrease of about 30%.
Now, she said, Mendelian randomization studies such as this analysis of the UK Biobank data are showing larger effects with the lifelong exposure to lower LDL levels that genetic variants confer. “As you can see, a pattern emerges ... of larger effects on risk than might be anticipated from the short-term clinical trials.”
A similar pattern can be seen with SBP, with shorter-term clinical trials showing smaller reductions in CVD. Observational studies show more reduction in risk when participants are followed for longer periods, and studies such as the present one show the larger effects of a lifetime of lower blood pressure, said Dr. Hopewell.
In terms of the combined effects, “It’s for the first time today that we see these nice results in a Mendelian randomization framework. This is a very well conducted analysis.”
Still, she cited potential limitations that can inform interpretation of the study results. These include the fact that Biobank participants have been followed for just about 10 years at this point, with most participants still alive. “Therefore, it is unclear whether this truly reflects the lifetime risk of coronary events.”
Also, the paucity of ethnic variation in the Biobank cohort means generalization is problematic until studies are conducted across different ethnic groups, she said.
The study design leaves open the possibility for reverse causality given the fact that participant characteristics captured at the time of recruitment may be influenced by prior disease, said Dr. Hopewell.
She also cited the complication of pleiotropy that’s a known limitation of Mendelian randomization studies. Importantly, the study’s reliance on genetic variation means that results may not directly translate to long-term use of lipid-lowering medication and antihypertensives, she said.
Still, the effects seen with the Biobank population bolster the importance of prevention efforts. “This really is quite encouraging,” said Dr. Hopewell. “Small differences over a long period of time have a material impact on risk.”
Dr. Hopewell is associate professor and senior scientist in genetic epidemiology and clinical trials at Oxford Cardiovascular Science, University of Oxford, England. She disclosed research contracts from unspecified pharmaceutical companies, and she has a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation.
Jemma Hopewell, PhD, was the assigned discussant for the Mendelian randomization study of LDL-C and SBP’s effects on cardiovascular health. She placed the genetic epidemiological study within the framework of other short- and medium-term studies that have examined the effects of LDL-C and SBP on cardiovascular health.
“Let’s think about this in the context of other studies,” said Dr. Hopewell, asking what the study adds to what’s known about exposure to LDL-C and systolic blood pressure levels. Shorter-term clinical trials that tracked differences in LDL-C over about 5 years have shown a 20%-25% drop in cardiovascular risk, while medium-term observational studies have shown a decrease of about 30%.
Now, she said, Mendelian randomization studies such as this analysis of the UK Biobank data are showing larger effects with the lifelong exposure to lower LDL levels that genetic variants confer. “As you can see, a pattern emerges ... of larger effects on risk than might be anticipated from the short-term clinical trials.”
A similar pattern can be seen with SBP, with shorter-term clinical trials showing smaller reductions in CVD. Observational studies show more reduction in risk when participants are followed for longer periods, and studies such as the present one show the larger effects of a lifetime of lower blood pressure, said Dr. Hopewell.
In terms of the combined effects, “It’s for the first time today that we see these nice results in a Mendelian randomization framework. This is a very well conducted analysis.”
Still, she cited potential limitations that can inform interpretation of the study results. These include the fact that Biobank participants have been followed for just about 10 years at this point, with most participants still alive. “Therefore, it is unclear whether this truly reflects the lifetime risk of coronary events.”
Also, the paucity of ethnic variation in the Biobank cohort means generalization is problematic until studies are conducted across different ethnic groups, she said.
The study design leaves open the possibility for reverse causality given the fact that participant characteristics captured at the time of recruitment may be influenced by prior disease, said Dr. Hopewell.
She also cited the complication of pleiotropy that’s a known limitation of Mendelian randomization studies. Importantly, the study’s reliance on genetic variation means that results may not directly translate to long-term use of lipid-lowering medication and antihypertensives, she said.
Still, the effects seen with the Biobank population bolster the importance of prevention efforts. “This really is quite encouraging,” said Dr. Hopewell. “Small differences over a long period of time have a material impact on risk.”
Dr. Hopewell is associate professor and senior scientist in genetic epidemiology and clinical trials at Oxford Cardiovascular Science, University of Oxford, England. She disclosed research contracts from unspecified pharmaceutical companies, and she has a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation.
Jemma Hopewell, PhD, was the assigned discussant for the Mendelian randomization study of LDL-C and SBP’s effects on cardiovascular health. She placed the genetic epidemiological study within the framework of other short- and medium-term studies that have examined the effects of LDL-C and SBP on cardiovascular health.
“Let’s think about this in the context of other studies,” said Dr. Hopewell, asking what the study adds to what’s known about exposure to LDL-C and systolic blood pressure levels. Shorter-term clinical trials that tracked differences in LDL-C over about 5 years have shown a 20%-25% drop in cardiovascular risk, while medium-term observational studies have shown a decrease of about 30%.
Now, she said, Mendelian randomization studies such as this analysis of the UK Biobank data are showing larger effects with the lifelong exposure to lower LDL levels that genetic variants confer. “As you can see, a pattern emerges ... of larger effects on risk than might be anticipated from the short-term clinical trials.”
A similar pattern can be seen with SBP, with shorter-term clinical trials showing smaller reductions in CVD. Observational studies show more reduction in risk when participants are followed for longer periods, and studies such as the present one show the larger effects of a lifetime of lower blood pressure, said Dr. Hopewell.
In terms of the combined effects, “It’s for the first time today that we see these nice results in a Mendelian randomization framework. This is a very well conducted analysis.”
Still, she cited potential limitations that can inform interpretation of the study results. These include the fact that Biobank participants have been followed for just about 10 years at this point, with most participants still alive. “Therefore, it is unclear whether this truly reflects the lifetime risk of coronary events.”
Also, the paucity of ethnic variation in the Biobank cohort means generalization is problematic until studies are conducted across different ethnic groups, she said.
The study design leaves open the possibility for reverse causality given the fact that participant characteristics captured at the time of recruitment may be influenced by prior disease, said Dr. Hopewell.
She also cited the complication of pleiotropy that’s a known limitation of Mendelian randomization studies. Importantly, the study’s reliance on genetic variation means that results may not directly translate to long-term use of lipid-lowering medication and antihypertensives, she said.
Still, the effects seen with the Biobank population bolster the importance of prevention efforts. “This really is quite encouraging,” said Dr. Hopewell. “Small differences over a long period of time have a material impact on risk.”
Dr. Hopewell is associate professor and senior scientist in genetic epidemiology and clinical trials at Oxford Cardiovascular Science, University of Oxford, England. She disclosed research contracts from unspecified pharmaceutical companies, and she has a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation.
PARIS – Over the course of years and decades, lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure can reduce the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease by up to 80%, according to a new study.
“What we found is that lifetime exposure to the combination of lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure is associated with independent, additive, and dose-dependent effects on the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Brian Ference, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “The data seem to confirm that most cardiovascular events are preventable, and suggest that most cardiovascular events can be prevented, with prolonged exposure to modestly lower LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure.”
Any reduction of LDL-C and systolic blood pressure (SBP), in any combination, was associated with a lower lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the study, which took advantage of the United Kingdom’s large Biobank to identify individuals with genetically lower LDL-C and blood pressure levels. The relationship was dose-dependent and showed a log-linear relationship to the combined absolute LDL-C and SBP differences, said Dr. Ference, professor and executive director of the Centre for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge, England.
The results validate current guidelines that focus on a lifetime approach to cardiovascular risk reduction and support a focus on therapeutic lifestyle interventions for individuals at all levels of risk for cardiovascular events, said Dr. Ference. He foresees the results shaping new risk-estimating algorithms and informing the next round of prevention guidelines.
Previous studies had suggested that long-term exposure to lower levels of LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure reduced cardiovascular risk, but the association hadn’t been fully quantified. Ideally, said Dr. Ference, the question would be answered by a long-term randomized controlled trial, but it would be decades before meaningful data would accrue, and such a trial is unlikely to be conducted.
Using data from 438,952 Biobank participants, Dr. Ference and coinvestigators sought to quantify the association between LDL-C, systolic blood pressure, and atherosclerotic CVD. Taking advantage of genetic variants known to be associated with both lower LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure, the researchers constructed a “natural randomization” trial. This trial design is also known as Mendelian randomization.
First, the entire study population was randomized into those with exome variants associated with higher or lower LDL-C, which resulted in a mean 15-mg/dL difference between the arms. Then, each LDL-C arm was randomized into groups with exome variants associated with higher or lower SBP, resulting in a difference of 2.9-3 mm Hg between the blood pressure arms within each LDL arm. This randomization yielded a reference group, a group with lower LDL-C, a group with lower SBP, and a group with lower LDL-C and SBP.
For the total population, the mean LDL-C was 138 mg/dL, and the mean SBP was 137.8 mm Hg.
A total of 24,980 participants had coronary revascularization, a nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary death – the composite primary outcome measure of major coronary events.
“What we found is that long-term exposure to the combination of 1 mmol/L [about 39 mg/dL] lower LDL and 10 mm/Hg lower blood pressure is associated with an 80% lifetime reduction in risk of cardiovascular events, a 75% reduction in the risk of MI, and 68% reduction in the long-term risk of cardiovascular death,” said Dr. Ference.
By breaking participants out into separate quartiles of LDL-C and SBP levels, and examining outcomes for each quartile independently, Dr. Ference and collaborators were able to ascertain that the salutary effects of lower LDL-C and SBP were independent of each other.
Looking at individual cardiovascular outcomes, “The effect of combined exposure to both lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure appear to be quite similar across multiple composite cardiovascular outcomes,” said Dr. Ference; benefit was seen in risk of MI, stroke, and other vascular events.
Plotting out the amount of risk reduction against the genetic scores for LDL-C and SBP reduction showed a proportional relationship that was logarithmically linear. “These large proportional reductions in risk really suggest that, for LDL, systolic blood pressure, and their combination, the benefit really depends both on the magnitude and the duration of the exposure,” said Dr. Ference. The effect was seen regardless of age, gender, body mass index, and diabetes status; being a smoker slightly attenuated the effects of LDL-C and SBP.
The mean participant age was 65 years, and women made up 54% of the study population. Aside from lipid values and systolic blood pressure, there were no significant between-group differences.
From these findings, what message can clinicians take to their patients? “Benefit is a much greater motivator, rather than the nebulous concept of risk,” said Dr. Ference. “So if we begin to crystallize and give an estimate of how much someone can benefit – either from adhering to a healthy lifestyle, with specific goals for LDL and blood pressure reductions, or from encouraging them to remain compliant with their therapies, achieving those corresponding goals – we can quantify their expected clinical benefit and encourage them to invest in their health over the long term.”
Dr. Ference said that the actual mechanism by which lipids and blood pressure are lowered matters less than the amount and duration of lowering: “These data are really agnostic as to the mechanism by which either blood pressure or LDL – or apo-B–containing lipoproteins generally – and blood pressure are reduced. It really suggests that whatever mechanism by which an individual person can most effectively lower their LDL and blood pressure, that’s the best one for that person, if they can maintain that over time.”
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships, including research contracts, consulting arrangements, receipt of royalties, and being an owner or stockholder of more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and Medical Research Council, and by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Ference B. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Hot Line Session 3.
PARIS – Over the course of years and decades, lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure can reduce the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease by up to 80%, according to a new study.
“What we found is that lifetime exposure to the combination of lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure is associated with independent, additive, and dose-dependent effects on the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Brian Ference, MD, speaking at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “The data seem to confirm that most cardiovascular events are preventable, and suggest that most cardiovascular events can be prevented, with prolonged exposure to modestly lower LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure.”
Any reduction of LDL-C and systolic blood pressure (SBP), in any combination, was associated with a lower lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the study, which took advantage of the United Kingdom’s large Biobank to identify individuals with genetically lower LDL-C and blood pressure levels. The relationship was dose-dependent and showed a log-linear relationship to the combined absolute LDL-C and SBP differences, said Dr. Ference, professor and executive director of the Centre for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge, England.
The results validate current guidelines that focus on a lifetime approach to cardiovascular risk reduction and support a focus on therapeutic lifestyle interventions for individuals at all levels of risk for cardiovascular events, said Dr. Ference. He foresees the results shaping new risk-estimating algorithms and informing the next round of prevention guidelines.
Previous studies had suggested that long-term exposure to lower levels of LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure reduced cardiovascular risk, but the association hadn’t been fully quantified. Ideally, said Dr. Ference, the question would be answered by a long-term randomized controlled trial, but it would be decades before meaningful data would accrue, and such a trial is unlikely to be conducted.
Using data from 438,952 Biobank participants, Dr. Ference and coinvestigators sought to quantify the association between LDL-C, systolic blood pressure, and atherosclerotic CVD. Taking advantage of genetic variants known to be associated with both lower LDL-C and lower systolic blood pressure, the researchers constructed a “natural randomization” trial. This trial design is also known as Mendelian randomization.
First, the entire study population was randomized into those with exome variants associated with higher or lower LDL-C, which resulted in a mean 15-mg/dL difference between the arms. Then, each LDL-C arm was randomized into groups with exome variants associated with higher or lower SBP, resulting in a difference of 2.9-3 mm Hg between the blood pressure arms within each LDL arm. This randomization yielded a reference group, a group with lower LDL-C, a group with lower SBP, and a group with lower LDL-C and SBP.
For the total population, the mean LDL-C was 138 mg/dL, and the mean SBP was 137.8 mm Hg.
A total of 24,980 participants had coronary revascularization, a nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary death – the composite primary outcome measure of major coronary events.
“What we found is that long-term exposure to the combination of 1 mmol/L [about 39 mg/dL] lower LDL and 10 mm/Hg lower blood pressure is associated with an 80% lifetime reduction in risk of cardiovascular events, a 75% reduction in the risk of MI, and 68% reduction in the long-term risk of cardiovascular death,” said Dr. Ference.
By breaking participants out into separate quartiles of LDL-C and SBP levels, and examining outcomes for each quartile independently, Dr. Ference and collaborators were able to ascertain that the salutary effects of lower LDL-C and SBP were independent of each other.
Looking at individual cardiovascular outcomes, “The effect of combined exposure to both lower LDL and lower systolic blood pressure appear to be quite similar across multiple composite cardiovascular outcomes,” said Dr. Ference; benefit was seen in risk of MI, stroke, and other vascular events.
Plotting out the amount of risk reduction against the genetic scores for LDL-C and SBP reduction showed a proportional relationship that was logarithmically linear. “These large proportional reductions in risk really suggest that, for LDL, systolic blood pressure, and their combination, the benefit really depends both on the magnitude and the duration of the exposure,” said Dr. Ference. The effect was seen regardless of age, gender, body mass index, and diabetes status; being a smoker slightly attenuated the effects of LDL-C and SBP.
The mean participant age was 65 years, and women made up 54% of the study population. Aside from lipid values and systolic blood pressure, there were no significant between-group differences.
From these findings, what message can clinicians take to their patients? “Benefit is a much greater motivator, rather than the nebulous concept of risk,” said Dr. Ference. “So if we begin to crystallize and give an estimate of how much someone can benefit – either from adhering to a healthy lifestyle, with specific goals for LDL and blood pressure reductions, or from encouraging them to remain compliant with their therapies, achieving those corresponding goals – we can quantify their expected clinical benefit and encourage them to invest in their health over the long term.”
Dr. Ference said that the actual mechanism by which lipids and blood pressure are lowered matters less than the amount and duration of lowering: “These data are really agnostic as to the mechanism by which either blood pressure or LDL – or apo-B–containing lipoproteins generally – and blood pressure are reduced. It really suggests that whatever mechanism by which an individual person can most effectively lower their LDL and blood pressure, that’s the best one for that person, if they can maintain that over time.”
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships, including research contracts, consulting arrangements, receipt of royalties, and being an owner or stockholder of more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research and Medical Research Council, and by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Ference B. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Hot Line Session 3.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2019
Closing the missing link between childhood risk factors and adult cardiovascular outcomes
PARIS – Arguably one of the most important and far-reaching studies presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology didn’t take place in the massive main ballroom with dazzling lights and sound and thousands of cardiologists in attendance, but in a tiny, makeshift, open-sided venue slapped together of cardboard and fiberboard and plunked down in the noisy poster hall.
It was there that Terence Dwyer, MBBS, MD, began by observing, “We know quite a bit about the relationship of cardiovascular risk factors in adults to cardiovascular disease; we know virtually nothing about the relationship of those risk factors in childhood because – until now – there has been no direct evidence relating to this. What I’m going to present to you is some direct evidence.”
The data come from the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium, which includes investigators from seven pioneering prospective child cohort studies, which collectively measured major cardiovascular risk factors in more than 42,000 children beginning back in the 1970s.
Some of these studies will be familiar names to many American physicians and epidemiologists. They include the Bogolusa Heart Study, the Muscatine Study, the Princeton Lipid Research Clinic Study, and the Minneapolis Childhood Cohort Studies. Similar studies were launched decades ago in Australia and Finland. The oldest of these cohorts are now in their 50s, and they are developing cardiovascular disease. The new i3C findings based on pooled data from these studies provides the first direct evidence that high serum cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, and smoking in childhood are linked to increased risk of hospitalization for acute MI, stroke, and peripheral artery disease in early middle age, said Dr. Dwyer, emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).
The analysis showed that each 10% increase above average in serum cholesterol in childhood was associated with a 16% increased risk of hospitalization for a cardiovascular event at a mean age of 49 years. A 2-point rise in BMI was associated with a 20% higher risk. A 10% increase above average in systolic blood pressure in childhood was linked to a 40% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event in later life. And smoking in childhood or adolescence was associated with a 77% higher risk of a cardiovascular event.
The i3C analysis also demonstrated that For example, individuals who both as adults and children had two or more of the four major cardiovascular risk factors studied had a sixfold greater risk of a major cardiovascular event in early middle age than if they had two or more risk factors as adults but none as children. If they had two or more risk factors as adults and one risk factor in childhood, their risk of a cardiovascular event was roughly twice as great as if they had no risk factors as a child. And if they had two or more risk factors present in childhood but none in adulthood, their risk of an event was threefold higher than if none of the four major cardiovascular risk factors were present during both periods of life, he continued.
The investigators consider their findings preliminary because most participants in the cohort studies are just reaching age 50 years.
“As we follow them for another 5 years, because of their age, the number of cardiovascular events will increase dramatically,” Dr. Dwyer explained. “One of the reasons we’re presenting this data now in preliminary form is these cohort studies will be the only data of this kind for about another 20 years. We want it out there when it can be most useful. It’s not like the situation with RCTs [randomized, controlled trials] where you’re able to wait 2 years for the next RCT.”
Clinical and policy implications
Asked about the clinical implications of the i3C findings, he replied, “At the very least, at this stage, consideration should be given to lowering risk factors in childhood as a greater priority in the cardiovascular disease prevention field.”
From my experience on national committees that look at what we do about cardiovascular prevention in childhood, they generally say we’re unprepared to take a strong stance on this because we have no direct evidence that these risk factors and what underpins them are a genuine problem,” according to Dr. Dwyer.
That’s no longer the case. By the end of the year, the i3C investigators expect to publish their results. As word reaches the public, he expects to finally see a growing momentum for cardiovascular prevention in pediatrics.
“Just imagine saying to a parent, ‘It looks highly likely that if you don’t do anything about the weight your children have put on, or other risk factors, they will be left at the end of childhood with a residual risk for cardiovascular disease that it doesn’t appear can be completely eradicated. It can be reduced by interventions in adulthood, but something’s happened there in childhood that was important.’ I think parents will demand action at that time,” he said.
In an interview, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, called the i3C data “incredibly important.”
“The risk factor values that they’re looking at in kids are not abnormal, they’re at the higher range of what we consider very normal, and yet those slightly elevated exposures within the normal range are causing damage. These kids are accruing risk for atherosclerosis down the road, even within what’s considered to be normal ranges,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“I think it’s very telling that, early in life, we can delineate trajectories already emerging about how these kids are going to play out the rest of their lives in terms of their atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk. That’s a very important thing to recognize, and we haven’t always thought that way. We always thought you arrive at your 21st birthday and then things start to matter, and by the time you got to 50, now it really matters. But the truth is the horse is already well out of the barn at age 50 and it’s coming out of the barn at age 21. That’s what the i3C data are starting to tell us: that it’s incredibly important that we move further upstream,” the cardiologist added.
What’s the best way forward?
“We have to create an environment where we tilt the playing field towards healthy choices. Sometimes that means taxation policy: It worked for alcohol and tobacco. Sometimes that means frank prohibition: indoor smoking laws have had a huge beneficial effect on public health. Sometimes it’s more controversial, like taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, but I think that’s an experiment we have to play out to see if it works,” according to Dr. Lloyd-Jones. “I think our best solutions are going to come through policy, environmental change, and lifestyle in the early years because it’s just not practical to think about introducing foreign substances to mass amounts of kids.”
He noted that the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has held two workshops within the past year focused on these very issues.
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, past-honored as the American Heart Association Physician of the Year in recognition of his decades of work with that organization in advancing cardiovascular prevention, said “there’s a very good chance” the AHA will take on a major role in what he anticipates will be a much greater emphasis on cardiovascular prevention starting in early life in order to favorably alter life trajectories.
“Stay tuned in the next few months. We’re coming to a decade change, so as we enter 2020, the AHA will be promulgating its strategic goals for the next decade. The AHA is a much bigger, better-funded organization than it was even 10 years ago, and they’re looking to partner with groups like the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, [and] the NIH, to actually make major policy initiatives on cardiovascular prevention,” he said.
The i3C study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dwyer reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Arguably one of the most important and far-reaching studies presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology didn’t take place in the massive main ballroom with dazzling lights and sound and thousands of cardiologists in attendance, but in a tiny, makeshift, open-sided venue slapped together of cardboard and fiberboard and plunked down in the noisy poster hall.
It was there that Terence Dwyer, MBBS, MD, began by observing, “We know quite a bit about the relationship of cardiovascular risk factors in adults to cardiovascular disease; we know virtually nothing about the relationship of those risk factors in childhood because – until now – there has been no direct evidence relating to this. What I’m going to present to you is some direct evidence.”
The data come from the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium, which includes investigators from seven pioneering prospective child cohort studies, which collectively measured major cardiovascular risk factors in more than 42,000 children beginning back in the 1970s.
Some of these studies will be familiar names to many American physicians and epidemiologists. They include the Bogolusa Heart Study, the Muscatine Study, the Princeton Lipid Research Clinic Study, and the Minneapolis Childhood Cohort Studies. Similar studies were launched decades ago in Australia and Finland. The oldest of these cohorts are now in their 50s, and they are developing cardiovascular disease. The new i3C findings based on pooled data from these studies provides the first direct evidence that high serum cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, and smoking in childhood are linked to increased risk of hospitalization for acute MI, stroke, and peripheral artery disease in early middle age, said Dr. Dwyer, emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).
The analysis showed that each 10% increase above average in serum cholesterol in childhood was associated with a 16% increased risk of hospitalization for a cardiovascular event at a mean age of 49 years. A 2-point rise in BMI was associated with a 20% higher risk. A 10% increase above average in systolic blood pressure in childhood was linked to a 40% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event in later life. And smoking in childhood or adolescence was associated with a 77% higher risk of a cardiovascular event.
The i3C analysis also demonstrated that For example, individuals who both as adults and children had two or more of the four major cardiovascular risk factors studied had a sixfold greater risk of a major cardiovascular event in early middle age than if they had two or more risk factors as adults but none as children. If they had two or more risk factors as adults and one risk factor in childhood, their risk of a cardiovascular event was roughly twice as great as if they had no risk factors as a child. And if they had two or more risk factors present in childhood but none in adulthood, their risk of an event was threefold higher than if none of the four major cardiovascular risk factors were present during both periods of life, he continued.
The investigators consider their findings preliminary because most participants in the cohort studies are just reaching age 50 years.
“As we follow them for another 5 years, because of their age, the number of cardiovascular events will increase dramatically,” Dr. Dwyer explained. “One of the reasons we’re presenting this data now in preliminary form is these cohort studies will be the only data of this kind for about another 20 years. We want it out there when it can be most useful. It’s not like the situation with RCTs [randomized, controlled trials] where you’re able to wait 2 years for the next RCT.”
Clinical and policy implications
Asked about the clinical implications of the i3C findings, he replied, “At the very least, at this stage, consideration should be given to lowering risk factors in childhood as a greater priority in the cardiovascular disease prevention field.”
From my experience on national committees that look at what we do about cardiovascular prevention in childhood, they generally say we’re unprepared to take a strong stance on this because we have no direct evidence that these risk factors and what underpins them are a genuine problem,” according to Dr. Dwyer.
That’s no longer the case. By the end of the year, the i3C investigators expect to publish their results. As word reaches the public, he expects to finally see a growing momentum for cardiovascular prevention in pediatrics.
“Just imagine saying to a parent, ‘It looks highly likely that if you don’t do anything about the weight your children have put on, or other risk factors, they will be left at the end of childhood with a residual risk for cardiovascular disease that it doesn’t appear can be completely eradicated. It can be reduced by interventions in adulthood, but something’s happened there in childhood that was important.’ I think parents will demand action at that time,” he said.
In an interview, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, called the i3C data “incredibly important.”
“The risk factor values that they’re looking at in kids are not abnormal, they’re at the higher range of what we consider very normal, and yet those slightly elevated exposures within the normal range are causing damage. These kids are accruing risk for atherosclerosis down the road, even within what’s considered to be normal ranges,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“I think it’s very telling that, early in life, we can delineate trajectories already emerging about how these kids are going to play out the rest of their lives in terms of their atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk. That’s a very important thing to recognize, and we haven’t always thought that way. We always thought you arrive at your 21st birthday and then things start to matter, and by the time you got to 50, now it really matters. But the truth is the horse is already well out of the barn at age 50 and it’s coming out of the barn at age 21. That’s what the i3C data are starting to tell us: that it’s incredibly important that we move further upstream,” the cardiologist added.
What’s the best way forward?
“We have to create an environment where we tilt the playing field towards healthy choices. Sometimes that means taxation policy: It worked for alcohol and tobacco. Sometimes that means frank prohibition: indoor smoking laws have had a huge beneficial effect on public health. Sometimes it’s more controversial, like taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, but I think that’s an experiment we have to play out to see if it works,” according to Dr. Lloyd-Jones. “I think our best solutions are going to come through policy, environmental change, and lifestyle in the early years because it’s just not practical to think about introducing foreign substances to mass amounts of kids.”
He noted that the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has held two workshops within the past year focused on these very issues.
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, past-honored as the American Heart Association Physician of the Year in recognition of his decades of work with that organization in advancing cardiovascular prevention, said “there’s a very good chance” the AHA will take on a major role in what he anticipates will be a much greater emphasis on cardiovascular prevention starting in early life in order to favorably alter life trajectories.
“Stay tuned in the next few months. We’re coming to a decade change, so as we enter 2020, the AHA will be promulgating its strategic goals for the next decade. The AHA is a much bigger, better-funded organization than it was even 10 years ago, and they’re looking to partner with groups like the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, [and] the NIH, to actually make major policy initiatives on cardiovascular prevention,” he said.
The i3C study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dwyer reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Arguably one of the most important and far-reaching studies presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology didn’t take place in the massive main ballroom with dazzling lights and sound and thousands of cardiologists in attendance, but in a tiny, makeshift, open-sided venue slapped together of cardboard and fiberboard and plunked down in the noisy poster hall.
It was there that Terence Dwyer, MBBS, MD, began by observing, “We know quite a bit about the relationship of cardiovascular risk factors in adults to cardiovascular disease; we know virtually nothing about the relationship of those risk factors in childhood because – until now – there has been no direct evidence relating to this. What I’m going to present to you is some direct evidence.”
The data come from the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort (i3C) Consortium, which includes investigators from seven pioneering prospective child cohort studies, which collectively measured major cardiovascular risk factors in more than 42,000 children beginning back in the 1970s.
Some of these studies will be familiar names to many American physicians and epidemiologists. They include the Bogolusa Heart Study, the Muscatine Study, the Princeton Lipid Research Clinic Study, and the Minneapolis Childhood Cohort Studies. Similar studies were launched decades ago in Australia and Finland. The oldest of these cohorts are now in their 50s, and they are developing cardiovascular disease. The new i3C findings based on pooled data from these studies provides the first direct evidence that high serum cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, and smoking in childhood are linked to increased risk of hospitalization for acute MI, stroke, and peripheral artery disease in early middle age, said Dr. Dwyer, emeritus professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).
The analysis showed that each 10% increase above average in serum cholesterol in childhood was associated with a 16% increased risk of hospitalization for a cardiovascular event at a mean age of 49 years. A 2-point rise in BMI was associated with a 20% higher risk. A 10% increase above average in systolic blood pressure in childhood was linked to a 40% increase in risk of a cardiovascular event in later life. And smoking in childhood or adolescence was associated with a 77% higher risk of a cardiovascular event.
The i3C analysis also demonstrated that For example, individuals who both as adults and children had two or more of the four major cardiovascular risk factors studied had a sixfold greater risk of a major cardiovascular event in early middle age than if they had two or more risk factors as adults but none as children. If they had two or more risk factors as adults and one risk factor in childhood, their risk of a cardiovascular event was roughly twice as great as if they had no risk factors as a child. And if they had two or more risk factors present in childhood but none in adulthood, their risk of an event was threefold higher than if none of the four major cardiovascular risk factors were present during both periods of life, he continued.
The investigators consider their findings preliminary because most participants in the cohort studies are just reaching age 50 years.
“As we follow them for another 5 years, because of their age, the number of cardiovascular events will increase dramatically,” Dr. Dwyer explained. “One of the reasons we’re presenting this data now in preliminary form is these cohort studies will be the only data of this kind for about another 20 years. We want it out there when it can be most useful. It’s not like the situation with RCTs [randomized, controlled trials] where you’re able to wait 2 years for the next RCT.”
Clinical and policy implications
Asked about the clinical implications of the i3C findings, he replied, “At the very least, at this stage, consideration should be given to lowering risk factors in childhood as a greater priority in the cardiovascular disease prevention field.”
From my experience on national committees that look at what we do about cardiovascular prevention in childhood, they generally say we’re unprepared to take a strong stance on this because we have no direct evidence that these risk factors and what underpins them are a genuine problem,” according to Dr. Dwyer.
That’s no longer the case. By the end of the year, the i3C investigators expect to publish their results. As word reaches the public, he expects to finally see a growing momentum for cardiovascular prevention in pediatrics.
“Just imagine saying to a parent, ‘It looks highly likely that if you don’t do anything about the weight your children have put on, or other risk factors, they will be left at the end of childhood with a residual risk for cardiovascular disease that it doesn’t appear can be completely eradicated. It can be reduced by interventions in adulthood, but something’s happened there in childhood that was important.’ I think parents will demand action at that time,” he said.
In an interview, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, called the i3C data “incredibly important.”
“The risk factor values that they’re looking at in kids are not abnormal, they’re at the higher range of what we consider very normal, and yet those slightly elevated exposures within the normal range are causing damage. These kids are accruing risk for atherosclerosis down the road, even within what’s considered to be normal ranges,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
“I think it’s very telling that, early in life, we can delineate trajectories already emerging about how these kids are going to play out the rest of their lives in terms of their atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk. That’s a very important thing to recognize, and we haven’t always thought that way. We always thought you arrive at your 21st birthday and then things start to matter, and by the time you got to 50, now it really matters. But the truth is the horse is already well out of the barn at age 50 and it’s coming out of the barn at age 21. That’s what the i3C data are starting to tell us: that it’s incredibly important that we move further upstream,” the cardiologist added.
What’s the best way forward?
“We have to create an environment where we tilt the playing field towards healthy choices. Sometimes that means taxation policy: It worked for alcohol and tobacco. Sometimes that means frank prohibition: indoor smoking laws have had a huge beneficial effect on public health. Sometimes it’s more controversial, like taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, but I think that’s an experiment we have to play out to see if it works,” according to Dr. Lloyd-Jones. “I think our best solutions are going to come through policy, environmental change, and lifestyle in the early years because it’s just not practical to think about introducing foreign substances to mass amounts of kids.”
He noted that the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has held two workshops within the past year focused on these very issues.
Dr. Lloyd-Jones, past-honored as the American Heart Association Physician of the Year in recognition of his decades of work with that organization in advancing cardiovascular prevention, said “there’s a very good chance” the AHA will take on a major role in what he anticipates will be a much greater emphasis on cardiovascular prevention starting in early life in order to favorably alter life trajectories.
“Stay tuned in the next few months. We’re coming to a decade change, so as we enter 2020, the AHA will be promulgating its strategic goals for the next decade. The AHA is a much bigger, better-funded organization than it was even 10 years ago, and they’re looking to partner with groups like the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, [and] the NIH, to actually make major policy initiatives on cardiovascular prevention,” he said.
The i3C study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dwyer reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Sacubitril/valsartan suggests HFpEF benefit in neutral PARAGON-HF
PARIS – but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.
The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.
HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.
“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.
Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.
“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.
“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.
The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.
But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.
PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.
The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.
Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.
The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.
The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.
Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.
“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.
PARAGON-HF was a well-designed and well-conducted trial that unfortunately showed a modest treatment effect, with sacubitril/valsartan treatment reducing the overall primary endpoint by 13%, compared with control patients, a difference that was not statistically significant. One factor to consider when interpreting this outcome was that the study used an active control arm in which patients received valsartan even though no treatment is specifically approved for or is considered to have proven efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The investigators felt compelled to use this active control because many patients with this form of heart failure receive a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system. It’s possible that if sacubitril/valsartan had been compared with placebo the treatment effect would have been greater.
Although caution is required when interpreting subgroup outcomes in a study that lacks a positive primary endpoint, the data indicate a positive signal in the subgroup analysis that Dr. Solomon presented that took into account left ventricular ejection fraction at entry into the study. Patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 57% or less, roughly half the entire study group, showed a statistically significant benefit in a prespecified analysis, and a finding with some level of biological plausibility. This was a compelling analysis, and it suggested that with this treatment it may be possible to reduce a key outcome – the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations – in patients with modestly reduced ejection fractions.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD , is a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as the designated discussant for PARAGON-HF.
PARAGON-HF was a well-designed and well-conducted trial that unfortunately showed a modest treatment effect, with sacubitril/valsartan treatment reducing the overall primary endpoint by 13%, compared with control patients, a difference that was not statistically significant. One factor to consider when interpreting this outcome was that the study used an active control arm in which patients received valsartan even though no treatment is specifically approved for or is considered to have proven efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The investigators felt compelled to use this active control because many patients with this form of heart failure receive a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system. It’s possible that if sacubitril/valsartan had been compared with placebo the treatment effect would have been greater.
Although caution is required when interpreting subgroup outcomes in a study that lacks a positive primary endpoint, the data indicate a positive signal in the subgroup analysis that Dr. Solomon presented that took into account left ventricular ejection fraction at entry into the study. Patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 57% or less, roughly half the entire study group, showed a statistically significant benefit in a prespecified analysis, and a finding with some level of biological plausibility. This was a compelling analysis, and it suggested that with this treatment it may be possible to reduce a key outcome – the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations – in patients with modestly reduced ejection fractions.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD , is a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as the designated discussant for PARAGON-HF.
PARAGON-HF was a well-designed and well-conducted trial that unfortunately showed a modest treatment effect, with sacubitril/valsartan treatment reducing the overall primary endpoint by 13%, compared with control patients, a difference that was not statistically significant. One factor to consider when interpreting this outcome was that the study used an active control arm in which patients received valsartan even though no treatment is specifically approved for or is considered to have proven efficacy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The investigators felt compelled to use this active control because many patients with this form of heart failure receive a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system. It’s possible that if sacubitril/valsartan had been compared with placebo the treatment effect would have been greater.
Although caution is required when interpreting subgroup outcomes in a study that lacks a positive primary endpoint, the data indicate a positive signal in the subgroup analysis that Dr. Solomon presented that took into account left ventricular ejection fraction at entry into the study. Patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 57% or less, roughly half the entire study group, showed a statistically significant benefit in a prespecified analysis, and a finding with some level of biological plausibility. This was a compelling analysis, and it suggested that with this treatment it may be possible to reduce a key outcome – the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations – in patients with modestly reduced ejection fractions.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD , is a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as the designated discussant for PARAGON-HF.
PARIS – but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.
The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.
HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.
“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.
Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.
“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.
“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.
The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.
But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.
PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.
The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.
Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.
The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.
The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.
Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.
“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.
PARIS – but that didn’t stop some experts from seeing a practice-changing message in its findings.
The results of PARAGON-HF, a major trial of sacubitril/valsartan – a compound already approved for treating heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction – in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showed a statistically neutral result for the study’s primary endpoint, but with an excruciatingly close near miss for statistical significance and clear benefit in a subgroup of HFpEF patients with a modestly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings seemed to convince some experts to soon try using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) to treat selected patients with HFpEF, driven in large part by the lack of any other agent clearly proven to benefit the large number of patients with this form of heart failure.
HFpEF is “a huge unmet need,” and data from the PARAGON-HF trial “suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may be beneficial in some patients with HFpEF, particularly those with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not frankly reduced, but less than normal,” specifically patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, Scott D. Solomon, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology as he reported the primary PARAGON-HF results.
“I’m not speaking for regulators or for guidelines, but I suspect that in this group of patients [with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%] there is at least some rationale to use this treatment,” said Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
His suggestion, which cut against the standard rules that govern the interpretation of trial results, met a substantial level of receptivity at the congress.
Trial results “are not black and white, where a P value of .049 means the trial was totally positive, and a P of .051 means it’s totally neutral. That’s misleading, and it’s why the field is moving to different types of [statistical] analysis that give us more leeway in interpreting data,” commented Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris.
“Everything in this trial points to substantial potential benefit. I’m not impressed by the P value that just missed significance. I think this is a very important advance,” said Dr. Steg, who had no involvement in the study, during a press conference at the congress.
“I agree. I look at the totality of evidence, and to me the PARAGON-HF results were positive in patients with an ejection fraction of 50%, which is not a normal level. The way I interpret the results is, the treatment works in patients with an ejection fraction that is ‘lowish,’ but not at the conventional level of reduced ejection fraction,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who also had no involvement with PARAGON-HF.
Stuart J. Connolly, MD, designated discussant for the report at the congress and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., struck similar notes during his discussion of the report, and called the subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction “compelling,” and supported by several secondary findings of the study, the biological plausibility of a link between ejection fraction and treatment response, and by suggestions of a similar effect caused by related drugs in prior studies.
The argument in favor of sacubitril/valsartan’s efficacy in a subgroup of PARAGON-HF patients was also taken up by Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas. “I think it’s legitimate to say that there are HFpEF subgroups that might benefit” from sacubitril/valsartan, such as women. “I think it’s appropriate in this disease to look at subgroups because we have to find something that works for these patients,” she added in a video interview.
But Dr. Jessup also urged caution in interpreting the link between modestly reduced ejection fraction and response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients because ejection fraction measurements by echocardiography, as done in the trial, are notoriously unreliable. “We need more precise markers of who responds to this drug and who does not,” she said.
PARAGON-HF randomized 4,796 patients at 848 sites in 43 countries who were aged at least 50 years, had signs and symptoms of heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, had evidence on echocardiography of either left atrial enlargement or left ventricular hypertrophy, and had an elevated blood level of natriuretic peptides.
The study’s primary endpoint was the composite rate of total (both first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. That outcome occurred at a rate of 12.8 events/100 patient-years in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and a rate of 14.6 events/100 patient-years in control patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocking drug valsartan alone. Those results yielded a relative risk reduction by sacubitril/valsartan of 13% with a P value of .059, just missing statistical significance. Concurrently with Dr. Solomon’s report the results appeared in an article online and then subsequently in print (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20). The primary endpoint was driven primarily by a 15% relative risk reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure; the two treatment arms showed nearly identical rates of cardiovascular disease death.
Notable secondary findings that reached statistical significance included a 16% relative decrease in total heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular deaths, and urgent heart failure visits with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, as well as a 16% reduction in all investigator-reported events. Other significant benefits linked with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were a 45% relative improvement in functional class, a 30% relative improvement in patients achieving a meaningful increase in a quality of life measure, and a halving of the incidence of worsening renal function with sacubitril/valsartan.
The safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the study matched previous reports on the drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, an approved indication since 2015.
The key subgroup analysis detailed by Dr. Solomon was the incidence of the primary endpoint by baseline ejection fraction. Among the 2,495 patients (52% of the study population) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 57% or less when they entered the study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan cut the primary endpoint incidence by 22%, compared with valsartan alone, a statistically significant difference. Among patients with a baseline ejection fraction of 58% or greater, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan had no effect on the primary endpoint, compared with control patients. Dr. Solomon also reported a statistically significant 22% relative improvement in the primary endpoint among the 2,479 women in the study (52% of the total study cohort) while the drug had no discernible impact among men, but he did not highlight any immediate implication of this finding.
Despite how suggestive the finding related to ejection fraction may be for practice, a major impediment to prescribing sacubitril/valsartan to HFpEF patients may come from pharmacy managers, suggested Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure specialist and professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis.
“The study did not hit its primary endpoint, so pharmacy managers will face no moral issue by withholding the drug” from HFpEF patients, Dr. Mann said in an interview. Because sacubitril/valsartan is substantially costlier than other renin-angiotensin system inhibitor drugs, which are mostly generic, patients may often find it difficult to pay for sacubitril/valsartan themselves if it receives no insurance coverage.
“It’s heartbreaking that the endpoint missed for a disease with no proven treatment. The study may have narrowly missed, but it still missed, and a lot of us had hoped it would be positive. It’s a slippery slope” when investigators try to qualify a trial result that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a statistically significant effect. “The primary endpoint is the primary endpoint, and we should not overinterpret the data,” Dr. Mann warned.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Solomon has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Novartis and from several other companies. Dr. Steg has received personal fees from Novartis and has received personal fees and research funding from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been a consultant to and received research funding from several companies but has had no recent relationship with Novartis. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, LivaNova, and Tenaya Therapeutics.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC 2019 CONGRESS
Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index predicts long-term outcomes in PAD
PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.
“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.
Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.
A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.
The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.
Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.
PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.
“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.
Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.
A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.
The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.
Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.
PARIS – The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index proved to be an independent predictor of 5-year overall survival as well as the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events in a prospective cohort study of 1,219 patients with peripheral artery disease, Yae Matsuo, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a score calculated with a formula based upon a patient’s height, serum albumin, and the ratio between ideal and actual body weight (Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):777-83). The GNRI tool has been shown to be an accurate prognosticator for clinical outcomes in patients on hemodialysis and those with heart failure. However, it’s predictive accuracy hasn’t been evaluated in patients with PAD, according to Dr. Matsuo, a cardiologist at Kitakanto Cardiovascular Hospital in Shibukawa, Japan.
“The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is simple to calculate – so easy – and I think it’s a better predictor than BMI,” she said.
Fifty-six percent of the PAD patients had a GNRI score greater than 98, indicative of no increased risk of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Their 5-year overall survival rate was 81%, compared with 62% in patients with a score of 92-98, 40% in those with a score of 82-91, and 23% with a score of less than 82. Other independent predictors of overall survival in multivariate analysis were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ankle brachial index, and C-reactive protein level.
A GNRI score above 98 was also predictive of significantly lower 5-year risk of both major adverse cardiovascular events and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events than in patients with a score of 98 or less.
The key remaining unanswered question is whether providing timely nutritional support to PAD patients with a low GNRI score will result in improved overall and limb survival and other outcomes.
Dr. Matsuo reported having no financial conflicts.
SOURCE: Matsuo Y. ESC CONGRESS 2019. Abstract P1956.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Patients frequently drive too soon after ICD implantation
PARIS – Fewer than half of commercial drivers who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) recalled being told they should never drive professionally again, according to a recent Danish survey. Further, about a third of patients overall reported that they began driving soon after they received an ICD, during the period when guidelines recommend refraining from driving.
“These devices, they save lives – so what’s not to like?” lead investigator Jenny Bjerre, MD, asked at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “Well, if you are a patient qualifying for an ICD, you also automatically qualify for some driving restrictions.” These are put in place because of the concern for an arrhythmia causing a loss of consciousness behind the wheel, she said.
A European consensus statement calls for a 3-month driving moratorium when an ICD is implanted for secondary prevention or after an appropriate ICD shock, and a 4-week restriction when an ICD is placed for primary prevention. All these restrictions apply to personal driver’s licenses; anyone with an ICD is permanently restricted from commercial driving according to the consensus statement, said Dr. Bjerre, of the University Hospital, Copenhagen.
“As you can imagine, these restrictions are not that popular with the patients,” she said. She related the story of a patient, a taxi driver who had returned to a full range of physically taxing activities after his ICD implantation, but whose livelihood had been taken away from him.
Dr. Bjerre said she sought to understand the perspective of this patient, who said, “Sometimes I wish I hadn’t been resuscitated!” She saw that the loss of freedom and a meaningful occupation had profoundly affected the daily life of this patient, and she became curious about adherence to driving restrictions in patients with ICDs.
Using the nationwide Danish medical record database, Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues looked at a nationwide cohort of ICD patients to see they remembered hearing about restrictions on personal and commercial driving activities after ICD implantation. They also investigated adherence to restrictions, and sought to identify what factors were associated with nonadherence.
The questionnaire developed by Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues was made available to the ICD cohort both electronically and in a paper version. Questionnaires received were linked with a variety of nationwide registries through each participant’s unique national identification number, she explained. They obtained information about comorbidities, pharmacotherapies, and socioeconomic status. Not only did this linkage give more precise and complete data than would a questionnaire alone, but it also allowed the investigators to see how responders differed from nonresponders – important in questionnaire research, said Dr. Bjerre.
The investigators were able to locate and distribute questionnaires to a total of 3,913 living adults who had received first-time ICDs during the 3-year study period. In the end, even after excluding 31 responses for missing data, 2,741 responses were used for analysis – a response rate of over 70%.
The median age of respondents was 67, and 83% were male. About half – 46% – of respondents had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. Compared with those who did respond, said Dr. Bjerre, the nonresponders “were younger, sicker, more likely to be female, had lower socioeconomic status, and were less likely to be on guideline-directed therapy.”
Over 90% of respondents held a private driver’s license at the time of their ICD implantation, and just 7% were actively using a commercial license prior to implantation. Participants had a variety of commercial driving occupations, including driving trucks, buses, and taxis.
“Only 43% of primary prevention patients and 64% of secondary prevention patients stated that they had been informed about any driving restrictions,” said Dr. Bjerre. The figure was slightly better for patients after an ICD shock was delivered – 72% of these patients recalled hearing about driving restrictions.
“Among professional drivers – who are never supposed to drive again – only 45% said they had been informed about any professional driving restrictions,” she added.
What did patients report about their actual driving behaviors? Of patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention, 34% resumed driving within one week of ICD implantation. For those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention and those who had received an appropriate ICD shock, 43% and 30%, respectively, began driving before the recommended 3 months had elapsed.
The driving behavior of those with commercial licenses didn’t differ from the cohort as a whole: 35% of this group had resumed commercial driving.
In all the study’s subgroups, nonadherence to driving restrictions was more likely if the participant didn’t recall having been informed of the restrictions, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.34 for nonadherence. However, noted Dr. Bjerre, at least 20% of patients in all subgroups who said they’d been told not to drive still resumed driving in contravention of restrictions. “So it seems that information can’t explain everything,” she said.
Additional predictors of nonadherence included male sex, with an OR of 1.53, being the only driver in the household (OR 1.29), and being at least 60 years old (OR, 1.20). Those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention had an OR of 2.20 for nonadherence, as well.
The study had a large cohort of real-life ICD patients and the response rate was high, said Dr. Bjerre. However, there was a risk of recall bias; additionally, nonresponders differed from responders, limiting full generalizability of the data. Finally, she observed that participants may have given the answers they thought were socially desirable.
“I want to get back to our friend the taxi driver,” who was adherent to restrictions, but who kept wanting to know what the actual chances were that he’d harm someone if he resumed driving. Realizing she couldn’t give him a very precise answer, Dr. Bjerre concluded, “I do think we owe it to our patients to provide more evidence on the absolute risk of traffic accidents in these patients.”
Dr. Bjerre reported that she had no conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Fewer than half of commercial drivers who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) recalled being told they should never drive professionally again, according to a recent Danish survey. Further, about a third of patients overall reported that they began driving soon after they received an ICD, during the period when guidelines recommend refraining from driving.
“These devices, they save lives – so what’s not to like?” lead investigator Jenny Bjerre, MD, asked at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “Well, if you are a patient qualifying for an ICD, you also automatically qualify for some driving restrictions.” These are put in place because of the concern for an arrhythmia causing a loss of consciousness behind the wheel, she said.
A European consensus statement calls for a 3-month driving moratorium when an ICD is implanted for secondary prevention or after an appropriate ICD shock, and a 4-week restriction when an ICD is placed for primary prevention. All these restrictions apply to personal driver’s licenses; anyone with an ICD is permanently restricted from commercial driving according to the consensus statement, said Dr. Bjerre, of the University Hospital, Copenhagen.
“As you can imagine, these restrictions are not that popular with the patients,” she said. She related the story of a patient, a taxi driver who had returned to a full range of physically taxing activities after his ICD implantation, but whose livelihood had been taken away from him.
Dr. Bjerre said she sought to understand the perspective of this patient, who said, “Sometimes I wish I hadn’t been resuscitated!” She saw that the loss of freedom and a meaningful occupation had profoundly affected the daily life of this patient, and she became curious about adherence to driving restrictions in patients with ICDs.
Using the nationwide Danish medical record database, Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues looked at a nationwide cohort of ICD patients to see they remembered hearing about restrictions on personal and commercial driving activities after ICD implantation. They also investigated adherence to restrictions, and sought to identify what factors were associated with nonadherence.
The questionnaire developed by Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues was made available to the ICD cohort both electronically and in a paper version. Questionnaires received were linked with a variety of nationwide registries through each participant’s unique national identification number, she explained. They obtained information about comorbidities, pharmacotherapies, and socioeconomic status. Not only did this linkage give more precise and complete data than would a questionnaire alone, but it also allowed the investigators to see how responders differed from nonresponders – important in questionnaire research, said Dr. Bjerre.
The investigators were able to locate and distribute questionnaires to a total of 3,913 living adults who had received first-time ICDs during the 3-year study period. In the end, even after excluding 31 responses for missing data, 2,741 responses were used for analysis – a response rate of over 70%.
The median age of respondents was 67, and 83% were male. About half – 46% – of respondents had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. Compared with those who did respond, said Dr. Bjerre, the nonresponders “were younger, sicker, more likely to be female, had lower socioeconomic status, and were less likely to be on guideline-directed therapy.”
Over 90% of respondents held a private driver’s license at the time of their ICD implantation, and just 7% were actively using a commercial license prior to implantation. Participants had a variety of commercial driving occupations, including driving trucks, buses, and taxis.
“Only 43% of primary prevention patients and 64% of secondary prevention patients stated that they had been informed about any driving restrictions,” said Dr. Bjerre. The figure was slightly better for patients after an ICD shock was delivered – 72% of these patients recalled hearing about driving restrictions.
“Among professional drivers – who are never supposed to drive again – only 45% said they had been informed about any professional driving restrictions,” she added.
What did patients report about their actual driving behaviors? Of patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention, 34% resumed driving within one week of ICD implantation. For those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention and those who had received an appropriate ICD shock, 43% and 30%, respectively, began driving before the recommended 3 months had elapsed.
The driving behavior of those with commercial licenses didn’t differ from the cohort as a whole: 35% of this group had resumed commercial driving.
In all the study’s subgroups, nonadherence to driving restrictions was more likely if the participant didn’t recall having been informed of the restrictions, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.34 for nonadherence. However, noted Dr. Bjerre, at least 20% of patients in all subgroups who said they’d been told not to drive still resumed driving in contravention of restrictions. “So it seems that information can’t explain everything,” she said.
Additional predictors of nonadherence included male sex, with an OR of 1.53, being the only driver in the household (OR 1.29), and being at least 60 years old (OR, 1.20). Those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention had an OR of 2.20 for nonadherence, as well.
The study had a large cohort of real-life ICD patients and the response rate was high, said Dr. Bjerre. However, there was a risk of recall bias; additionally, nonresponders differed from responders, limiting full generalizability of the data. Finally, she observed that participants may have given the answers they thought were socially desirable.
“I want to get back to our friend the taxi driver,” who was adherent to restrictions, but who kept wanting to know what the actual chances were that he’d harm someone if he resumed driving. Realizing she couldn’t give him a very precise answer, Dr. Bjerre concluded, “I do think we owe it to our patients to provide more evidence on the absolute risk of traffic accidents in these patients.”
Dr. Bjerre reported that she had no conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Fewer than half of commercial drivers who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) recalled being told they should never drive professionally again, according to a recent Danish survey. Further, about a third of patients overall reported that they began driving soon after they received an ICD, during the period when guidelines recommend refraining from driving.
“These devices, they save lives – so what’s not to like?” lead investigator Jenny Bjerre, MD, asked at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. “Well, if you are a patient qualifying for an ICD, you also automatically qualify for some driving restrictions.” These are put in place because of the concern for an arrhythmia causing a loss of consciousness behind the wheel, she said.
A European consensus statement calls for a 3-month driving moratorium when an ICD is implanted for secondary prevention or after an appropriate ICD shock, and a 4-week restriction when an ICD is placed for primary prevention. All these restrictions apply to personal driver’s licenses; anyone with an ICD is permanently restricted from commercial driving according to the consensus statement, said Dr. Bjerre, of the University Hospital, Copenhagen.
“As you can imagine, these restrictions are not that popular with the patients,” she said. She related the story of a patient, a taxi driver who had returned to a full range of physically taxing activities after his ICD implantation, but whose livelihood had been taken away from him.
Dr. Bjerre said she sought to understand the perspective of this patient, who said, “Sometimes I wish I hadn’t been resuscitated!” She saw that the loss of freedom and a meaningful occupation had profoundly affected the daily life of this patient, and she became curious about adherence to driving restrictions in patients with ICDs.
Using the nationwide Danish medical record database, Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues looked at a nationwide cohort of ICD patients to see they remembered hearing about restrictions on personal and commercial driving activities after ICD implantation. They also investigated adherence to restrictions, and sought to identify what factors were associated with nonadherence.
The questionnaire developed by Dr. Bjerre and her colleagues was made available to the ICD cohort both electronically and in a paper version. Questionnaires received were linked with a variety of nationwide registries through each participant’s unique national identification number, she explained. They obtained information about comorbidities, pharmacotherapies, and socioeconomic status. Not only did this linkage give more precise and complete data than would a questionnaire alone, but it also allowed the investigators to see how responders differed from nonresponders – important in questionnaire research, said Dr. Bjerre.
The investigators were able to locate and distribute questionnaires to a total of 3,913 living adults who had received first-time ICDs during the 3-year study period. In the end, even after excluding 31 responses for missing data, 2,741 responses were used for analysis – a response rate of over 70%.
The median age of respondents was 67, and 83% were male. About half – 46% – of respondents had an ICD implanted for primary prevention. Compared with those who did respond, said Dr. Bjerre, the nonresponders “were younger, sicker, more likely to be female, had lower socioeconomic status, and were less likely to be on guideline-directed therapy.”
Over 90% of respondents held a private driver’s license at the time of their ICD implantation, and just 7% were actively using a commercial license prior to implantation. Participants had a variety of commercial driving occupations, including driving trucks, buses, and taxis.
“Only 43% of primary prevention patients and 64% of secondary prevention patients stated that they had been informed about any driving restrictions,” said Dr. Bjerre. The figure was slightly better for patients after an ICD shock was delivered – 72% of these patients recalled hearing about driving restrictions.
“Among professional drivers – who are never supposed to drive again – only 45% said they had been informed about any professional driving restrictions,” she added.
What did patients report about their actual driving behaviors? Of patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention, 34% resumed driving within one week of ICD implantation. For those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention and those who had received an appropriate ICD shock, 43% and 30%, respectively, began driving before the recommended 3 months had elapsed.
The driving behavior of those with commercial licenses didn’t differ from the cohort as a whole: 35% of this group had resumed commercial driving.
In all the study’s subgroups, nonadherence to driving restrictions was more likely if the participant didn’t recall having been informed of the restrictions, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.34 for nonadherence. However, noted Dr. Bjerre, at least 20% of patients in all subgroups who said they’d been told not to drive still resumed driving in contravention of restrictions. “So it seems that information can’t explain everything,” she said.
Additional predictors of nonadherence included male sex, with an OR of 1.53, being the only driver in the household (OR 1.29), and being at least 60 years old (OR, 1.20). Those receiving an ICD for secondary prevention had an OR of 2.20 for nonadherence, as well.
The study had a large cohort of real-life ICD patients and the response rate was high, said Dr. Bjerre. However, there was a risk of recall bias; additionally, nonresponders differed from responders, limiting full generalizability of the data. Finally, she observed that participants may have given the answers they thought were socially desirable.
“I want to get back to our friend the taxi driver,” who was adherent to restrictions, but who kept wanting to know what the actual chances were that he’d harm someone if he resumed driving. Realizing she couldn’t give him a very precise answer, Dr. Bjerre concluded, “I do think we owe it to our patients to provide more evidence on the absolute risk of traffic accidents in these patients.”
Dr. Bjerre reported that she had no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2019
Cancer overtakes CVD as cause of death in high-income countries
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2019
Starting PCSK9 inhibitor in acute-phase ACS under study
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Remote ischemic conditioning in STEMI, RIP
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019