User login
Digoxin and heart failure mortality: The Swedes weigh in
WASHINGTON – The use of digoxin by Swedish Heart Failure Registry participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality if they had concomitant paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or were in normal sinus rhythm, Gianluigi Savarese, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In contrast, digoxin in Swedish patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) was associated with a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization but had no impact on mortality, added Dr. Savarese of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The Swedish Heart Failure Registry includes the majority of heart failure patients in that country. Data on 80 variables gets collected for each participant.
Dr. Savarese reported on 23,708 Swedes with HFrEF, 18% of whom were on digoxin. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the use of digoxin was associated with an 8% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 10% lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations during up to 11 years of follow-up.
In the 12,162 patients with HFrEF and comorbid AF, 30% of whom were on digoxin, the drug was associated with a 12% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and had no effect on all-cause mortality.
In contrast, among patients with HFrEF without AF, 5% of whom were taking digoxin, use of the drug was associated with an adjusted 31% increase in mortality risk. But digoxin didn’t affect the risk of heart failure hospitalization one way or the other in this group.
Stratifying subjects by their type of AF, the use of digoxin in patients with HFrEF and permanent AF was associated with a 16% reduction in risk of heart failure hospitalization with no impact on mortality. In contrast, among the 2,723 patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal AF, digoxin was associated with a 29% increase in the risk of mortality and no effect on hospitalization.
Current ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give digoxin a strong Class IIa recommendation for reducing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF. European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide a Class IIb recommendation for digoxin to reduce the risk of hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HFrEF in normal sinus rhythm.
Dr. Savarese said he and his coinvestigators decided to examine the impact of digoxin in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry because despite the guideline support for the drug’s use, recent years have brought conflicting data regarding digoxin’s impact on mortality. For example, a meta-analysis of nine studies in more than 235,000 AF patients, seven studies in patients with heart failure, and three in patients with both disorders showed that digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk in AF patients and a 14% increase in those with heart failure (Eur Heart J. 2015 Jul 21;36[28]:1831-8).
Moreover, at a late-breaking clinical trial session elsewhere at ACC 17, a secondary analysis of the roughly 18,000-patient ARISTOTLE trial came down emphatically on the side of avoiding the venerable drug in patients with AF, where it was found to be associated with a fourfold increased risk of sudden death.
Session comoderator Lee R. Goldberg, MD, medical director of the University of Pennsylvania Heart Failure and Transplantation Program in Philadelphia, observed that the use of digoxin has become quite controversial. He posed a question to Dr. Savarese: “Every few months someone writes the last paper on digoxin as they look at thousands of patients, and then there’s always a new paper. If you were to rewrite the guidelines now, what would you recommend for digoxin?”
Dr. Savarese replied that the current guidelines rely heavily upon the results of a 20-year-old randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of digoxin in heart failure (N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 20;336[8]:525-33). Those study participants look nothing at all like the heart failure patients physicians see today in clinical practice. Hardly any of them were on what today is guideline-directed medical therapy with a beta-blocker or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. So the trial’s applicability is dubious.
“Our Swedish data are observational. They are hypothesis-generating. They should drive trialists to design a new trial of digoxin. But I think we all know that’s not going to happen. So actually I don’t think there is still space for a IIb or IIa recommendation for digoxin in the guidelines,” Dr. Savarese said.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – The use of digoxin by Swedish Heart Failure Registry participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality if they had concomitant paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or were in normal sinus rhythm, Gianluigi Savarese, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In contrast, digoxin in Swedish patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) was associated with a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization but had no impact on mortality, added Dr. Savarese of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The Swedish Heart Failure Registry includes the majority of heart failure patients in that country. Data on 80 variables gets collected for each participant.
Dr. Savarese reported on 23,708 Swedes with HFrEF, 18% of whom were on digoxin. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the use of digoxin was associated with an 8% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 10% lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations during up to 11 years of follow-up.
In the 12,162 patients with HFrEF and comorbid AF, 30% of whom were on digoxin, the drug was associated with a 12% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and had no effect on all-cause mortality.
In contrast, among patients with HFrEF without AF, 5% of whom were taking digoxin, use of the drug was associated with an adjusted 31% increase in mortality risk. But digoxin didn’t affect the risk of heart failure hospitalization one way or the other in this group.
Stratifying subjects by their type of AF, the use of digoxin in patients with HFrEF and permanent AF was associated with a 16% reduction in risk of heart failure hospitalization with no impact on mortality. In contrast, among the 2,723 patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal AF, digoxin was associated with a 29% increase in the risk of mortality and no effect on hospitalization.
Current ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give digoxin a strong Class IIa recommendation for reducing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF. European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide a Class IIb recommendation for digoxin to reduce the risk of hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HFrEF in normal sinus rhythm.
Dr. Savarese said he and his coinvestigators decided to examine the impact of digoxin in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry because despite the guideline support for the drug’s use, recent years have brought conflicting data regarding digoxin’s impact on mortality. For example, a meta-analysis of nine studies in more than 235,000 AF patients, seven studies in patients with heart failure, and three in patients with both disorders showed that digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk in AF patients and a 14% increase in those with heart failure (Eur Heart J. 2015 Jul 21;36[28]:1831-8).
Moreover, at a late-breaking clinical trial session elsewhere at ACC 17, a secondary analysis of the roughly 18,000-patient ARISTOTLE trial came down emphatically on the side of avoiding the venerable drug in patients with AF, where it was found to be associated with a fourfold increased risk of sudden death.
Session comoderator Lee R. Goldberg, MD, medical director of the University of Pennsylvania Heart Failure and Transplantation Program in Philadelphia, observed that the use of digoxin has become quite controversial. He posed a question to Dr. Savarese: “Every few months someone writes the last paper on digoxin as they look at thousands of patients, and then there’s always a new paper. If you were to rewrite the guidelines now, what would you recommend for digoxin?”
Dr. Savarese replied that the current guidelines rely heavily upon the results of a 20-year-old randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of digoxin in heart failure (N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 20;336[8]:525-33). Those study participants look nothing at all like the heart failure patients physicians see today in clinical practice. Hardly any of them were on what today is guideline-directed medical therapy with a beta-blocker or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. So the trial’s applicability is dubious.
“Our Swedish data are observational. They are hypothesis-generating. They should drive trialists to design a new trial of digoxin. But I think we all know that’s not going to happen. So actually I don’t think there is still space for a IIb or IIa recommendation for digoxin in the guidelines,” Dr. Savarese said.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – The use of digoxin by Swedish Heart Failure Registry participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality if they had concomitant paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or were in normal sinus rhythm, Gianluigi Savarese, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In contrast, digoxin in Swedish patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) was associated with a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization but had no impact on mortality, added Dr. Savarese of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The Swedish Heart Failure Registry includes the majority of heart failure patients in that country. Data on 80 variables gets collected for each participant.
Dr. Savarese reported on 23,708 Swedes with HFrEF, 18% of whom were on digoxin. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the use of digoxin was associated with an 8% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 10% lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations during up to 11 years of follow-up.
In the 12,162 patients with HFrEF and comorbid AF, 30% of whom were on digoxin, the drug was associated with a 12% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and had no effect on all-cause mortality.
In contrast, among patients with HFrEF without AF, 5% of whom were taking digoxin, use of the drug was associated with an adjusted 31% increase in mortality risk. But digoxin didn’t affect the risk of heart failure hospitalization one way or the other in this group.
Stratifying subjects by their type of AF, the use of digoxin in patients with HFrEF and permanent AF was associated with a 16% reduction in risk of heart failure hospitalization with no impact on mortality. In contrast, among the 2,723 patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal AF, digoxin was associated with a 29% increase in the risk of mortality and no effect on hospitalization.
Current ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines give digoxin a strong Class IIa recommendation for reducing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF. European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide a Class IIb recommendation for digoxin to reduce the risk of hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HFrEF in normal sinus rhythm.
Dr. Savarese said he and his coinvestigators decided to examine the impact of digoxin in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry because despite the guideline support for the drug’s use, recent years have brought conflicting data regarding digoxin’s impact on mortality. For example, a meta-analysis of nine studies in more than 235,000 AF patients, seven studies in patients with heart failure, and three in patients with both disorders showed that digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk in AF patients and a 14% increase in those with heart failure (Eur Heart J. 2015 Jul 21;36[28]:1831-8).
Moreover, at a late-breaking clinical trial session elsewhere at ACC 17, a secondary analysis of the roughly 18,000-patient ARISTOTLE trial came down emphatically on the side of avoiding the venerable drug in patients with AF, where it was found to be associated with a fourfold increased risk of sudden death.
Session comoderator Lee R. Goldberg, MD, medical director of the University of Pennsylvania Heart Failure and Transplantation Program in Philadelphia, observed that the use of digoxin has become quite controversial. He posed a question to Dr. Savarese: “Every few months someone writes the last paper on digoxin as they look at thousands of patients, and then there’s always a new paper. If you were to rewrite the guidelines now, what would you recommend for digoxin?”
Dr. Savarese replied that the current guidelines rely heavily upon the results of a 20-year-old randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of digoxin in heart failure (N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 20;336[8]:525-33). Those study participants look nothing at all like the heart failure patients physicians see today in clinical practice. Hardly any of them were on what today is guideline-directed medical therapy with a beta-blocker or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. So the trial’s applicability is dubious.
“Our Swedish data are observational. They are hypothesis-generating. They should drive trialists to design a new trial of digoxin. But I think we all know that’s not going to happen. So actually I don’t think there is still space for a IIb or IIa recommendation for digoxin in the guidelines,” Dr. Savarese said.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The use of digoxin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality if they had concomitant paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or were in normal sinus rhythm.
Data source: An observational study of nearly 24,000 patients enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, 18% of whom were on digoxin.
Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
CRT-D beneficial in mild HF with ejection fraction above 30%
WASHINGTON – Patients with mild heart failure symptoms, left bundle branch block, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31% to 44% who received cardiac resynchronization therapy with a built-in defibrillator experienced a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those randomized to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator alone during 7 years of follow-up.
These results from a new MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) long-term follow-up substudy “suggest that patients with a relatively preserved ejection fraction greater than 30% benefit from CRT-D [cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator] and could potentially be considered for this therapy,” said Katherine Vermilye, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In a subsequent publication, the MADIT-CRT investigators reported that, with extension of follow-up to 7 years, CRT-D also provided a significant benefit in terms of all-cause mortality in addition to the reduced rate of heart failure events (N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370[18]:1694-701).
However, even though an LVEF of 30% or less was a requirement for participation in MADIT-CRT, it turned out that, when the initial screening echocardiograms were eventually analyzed in a central core laboratory, one-third of study participants actually had a baseline LVEF of 31% to 44%, with the majority of excessive values being in the 31%-35% range.
Dr. Vermilye, of the University of Rochester in New York, presented a post hoc analysis of long-term outcomes in the subgroup having a baseline LVEF greater than 30%. They totaled 450 of 1,224 MADIT-CRT participants with left bundle branch block. They were significantly older and more likely to be female than the 824 subjects with an LVEF of 30% or less. They also had a shorter QRS duration – an average of 160 ms, versus 165 ms in patients with an LVEF of 30% or lower – and a smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume of 151 mL, compared with 196 mL in patients with a lower LVEF.
In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, CRT-D in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% was associated with a 54% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality at 7 years of follow-up, compared with receipt of an ICD-only device and with a smaller yet significant 31% reduction in risk in those with an LVEF of 30% or less. Worsening heart failure events were reduced by 64% in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% who received CRT-D, compared with ICD-only, and by 54% in those with a lower baseline LVEF.
The reduction in all-cause mortality seen with CRT-D was confined to patients who were high responders to CRT as defined echocardiographically by at least a 35% change in left ventricular end systolic volume 1 year post implantation. They had an 85% reduction in the risk of death during 7 years of follow-up with CRT-D if their baseline LVEF was greater than 30% and a 58% relative risk reduction if their LVEF was 30% or less.
In contrast, CRT-D brought a significantly reduced risk of heart failure events regardless of whether a patient was a low or high responder, although the magnitude of benefit was greater in the high responders. Among patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30%, CRT-D low responders had a 52% reduction in risk of heart failure events, compared with ICD recipients, while CRT-D high responders had an 81% relative risk reduction. Similarly, in patients with a baseline LVEF of 30% or less, CRT-D low responders had 48% reduction in heart failure events and high responders had a 79% risk reduction, compared with the ICD-only group.
Because this is a post hoc analysis, these new MADIT-CRT findings require validation in future studies, Dr. Vermilye observed.
MADIT-CRT was supported by Boston Scientific. Dr.. Vermilye reported having no financial conflicts.
The authors demonstrate the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a defibrillator. The reduction in mortality at 5 years was greater in high responders to CRT-D, although overall mortality was significantly reduced in all comers.
The authors demonstrate the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a defibrillator. The reduction in mortality at 5 years was greater in high responders to CRT-D, although overall mortality was significantly reduced in all comers.
The authors demonstrate the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with a defibrillator. The reduction in mortality at 5 years was greater in high responders to CRT-D, although overall mortality was significantly reduced in all comers.
WASHINGTON – Patients with mild heart failure symptoms, left bundle branch block, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31% to 44% who received cardiac resynchronization therapy with a built-in defibrillator experienced a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those randomized to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator alone during 7 years of follow-up.
These results from a new MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) long-term follow-up substudy “suggest that patients with a relatively preserved ejection fraction greater than 30% benefit from CRT-D [cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator] and could potentially be considered for this therapy,” said Katherine Vermilye, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In a subsequent publication, the MADIT-CRT investigators reported that, with extension of follow-up to 7 years, CRT-D also provided a significant benefit in terms of all-cause mortality in addition to the reduced rate of heart failure events (N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370[18]:1694-701).
However, even though an LVEF of 30% or less was a requirement for participation in MADIT-CRT, it turned out that, when the initial screening echocardiograms were eventually analyzed in a central core laboratory, one-third of study participants actually had a baseline LVEF of 31% to 44%, with the majority of excessive values being in the 31%-35% range.
Dr. Vermilye, of the University of Rochester in New York, presented a post hoc analysis of long-term outcomes in the subgroup having a baseline LVEF greater than 30%. They totaled 450 of 1,224 MADIT-CRT participants with left bundle branch block. They were significantly older and more likely to be female than the 824 subjects with an LVEF of 30% or less. They also had a shorter QRS duration – an average of 160 ms, versus 165 ms in patients with an LVEF of 30% or lower – and a smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume of 151 mL, compared with 196 mL in patients with a lower LVEF.
In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, CRT-D in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% was associated with a 54% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality at 7 years of follow-up, compared with receipt of an ICD-only device and with a smaller yet significant 31% reduction in risk in those with an LVEF of 30% or less. Worsening heart failure events were reduced by 64% in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% who received CRT-D, compared with ICD-only, and by 54% in those with a lower baseline LVEF.
The reduction in all-cause mortality seen with CRT-D was confined to patients who were high responders to CRT as defined echocardiographically by at least a 35% change in left ventricular end systolic volume 1 year post implantation. They had an 85% reduction in the risk of death during 7 years of follow-up with CRT-D if their baseline LVEF was greater than 30% and a 58% relative risk reduction if their LVEF was 30% or less.
In contrast, CRT-D brought a significantly reduced risk of heart failure events regardless of whether a patient was a low or high responder, although the magnitude of benefit was greater in the high responders. Among patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30%, CRT-D low responders had a 52% reduction in risk of heart failure events, compared with ICD recipients, while CRT-D high responders had an 81% relative risk reduction. Similarly, in patients with a baseline LVEF of 30% or less, CRT-D low responders had 48% reduction in heart failure events and high responders had a 79% risk reduction, compared with the ICD-only group.
Because this is a post hoc analysis, these new MADIT-CRT findings require validation in future studies, Dr. Vermilye observed.
MADIT-CRT was supported by Boston Scientific. Dr.. Vermilye reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – Patients with mild heart failure symptoms, left bundle branch block, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31% to 44% who received cardiac resynchronization therapy with a built-in defibrillator experienced a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those randomized to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator alone during 7 years of follow-up.
These results from a new MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) long-term follow-up substudy “suggest that patients with a relatively preserved ejection fraction greater than 30% benefit from CRT-D [cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator] and could potentially be considered for this therapy,” said Katherine Vermilye, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
In a subsequent publication, the MADIT-CRT investigators reported that, with extension of follow-up to 7 years, CRT-D also provided a significant benefit in terms of all-cause mortality in addition to the reduced rate of heart failure events (N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370[18]:1694-701).
However, even though an LVEF of 30% or less was a requirement for participation in MADIT-CRT, it turned out that, when the initial screening echocardiograms were eventually analyzed in a central core laboratory, one-third of study participants actually had a baseline LVEF of 31% to 44%, with the majority of excessive values being in the 31%-35% range.
Dr. Vermilye, of the University of Rochester in New York, presented a post hoc analysis of long-term outcomes in the subgroup having a baseline LVEF greater than 30%. They totaled 450 of 1,224 MADIT-CRT participants with left bundle branch block. They were significantly older and more likely to be female than the 824 subjects with an LVEF of 30% or less. They also had a shorter QRS duration – an average of 160 ms, versus 165 ms in patients with an LVEF of 30% or lower – and a smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume of 151 mL, compared with 196 mL in patients with a lower LVEF.
In a multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, CRT-D in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% was associated with a 54% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality at 7 years of follow-up, compared with receipt of an ICD-only device and with a smaller yet significant 31% reduction in risk in those with an LVEF of 30% or less. Worsening heart failure events were reduced by 64% in patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% who received CRT-D, compared with ICD-only, and by 54% in those with a lower baseline LVEF.
The reduction in all-cause mortality seen with CRT-D was confined to patients who were high responders to CRT as defined echocardiographically by at least a 35% change in left ventricular end systolic volume 1 year post implantation. They had an 85% reduction in the risk of death during 7 years of follow-up with CRT-D if their baseline LVEF was greater than 30% and a 58% relative risk reduction if their LVEF was 30% or less.
In contrast, CRT-D brought a significantly reduced risk of heart failure events regardless of whether a patient was a low or high responder, although the magnitude of benefit was greater in the high responders. Among patients with a baseline LVEF greater than 30%, CRT-D low responders had a 52% reduction in risk of heart failure events, compared with ICD recipients, while CRT-D high responders had an 81% relative risk reduction. Similarly, in patients with a baseline LVEF of 30% or less, CRT-D low responders had 48% reduction in heart failure events and high responders had a 79% risk reduction, compared with the ICD-only group.
Because this is a post hoc analysis, these new MADIT-CRT findings require validation in future studies, Dr. Vermilye observed.
MADIT-CRT was supported by Boston Scientific. Dr.. Vermilye reported having no financial conflicts.
AT ACC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 54% with CRT-D as compared with an ICD alone in MADIT-CRT participants with a baseline LVEF greater than 30% and by 31% in those with an LVEF of 30% or lower.
Data source: An analysis of 7-year rates of all-cause mortality and worsening heart failure events in 1,224 MADIT-CRT participants with left bundle branch block, 450 of whom had a baseline LVEF greater than 30%.
Disclosures: The MADIT-CRT study was supported by Boston Scientific. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
AATS publishes guidelines for infective endocarditis
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating complication of heart valve disease that, left untreated, can be fatal. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and many of the respective medical societies that represent the participating specialties have developed guidelines. Now, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery has published “Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis” to guide thoracic and cardiovascular surgeons in making decisions of when to operate in cases of IE (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.09.093).
The rationale for developing the guidelines is a growing prevalence of IE, including in patients with normal valves and no previous diagnosis of heart disease. “These new AATS consensus guidelines primarily address questions related to active and suspected active IE affective valves and intracardiac structures,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said. The AATS guidelines for infective endocarditis address complications including risk of embolism and the timing of surgery in patients with neurological complications, while acknowledging the the need for additional research into these topics.* “It is understood that surgery is beneficial only if the patient’s complications and other comorbidities do not preclude survival and meaningful recovery,” the guideline authors said.
The guidelines confirm the team approach for managing patients with IE. The team should include cardiology, infectious disease, cardiac surgery, and other specialties needed to handle IE-related complications (class of recommendation [COR] I, level of evidence [LOE] B). Before surgery, the surgeon should know the patient is on effective antimicrobial therapy (COR I, LOE B). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is indicated to yield the clearest understanding of the pathology (COR I, LOE B).
Dr. Pettersson and the guideline writing team also clarified indications for surgery in patients with IE. They include when valve dysfunction causes heart failure (COR I, LOE B); when, after a full course of antibiotics, the patient has signs of heart block, annular or aortic abscess or destructive penetrating lesions (COR I, LOE B); and in the setting of recurrent emboli and persistent vegetations despite appropriate antibiotic therapy (COR IIA, LOE B).
The guideline writers acknowledged potential disagreement between the AATS guidelines and those of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association with regard to early surgery in IE. Debate surrounds whether to operate early or wait for symptoms of heart failure to manifest in patients with native valve endocarditis (NVE). The AATS guideline authors cite work by Duk-Hyun Kang, MD, PhD, and coauthors in South Korea (N Engl J Med. 2012;366;2466-73) and others advocating for early surgery. “For this reason, once a surgical indication is evident, surgery should not be delayed,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said.
Several conditions can influence the timing of surgery. Patients with cerebral mycotic aneurysm should be managed closely with neurology or neurosurgery (COR I, LOE C). Patients with a recent intracranial hemorrhage should wait at least 3 weeks for surgery (COR IIA, LOE B), but those with nonhemorrhagic strokes could go in for urgent surgery (COR IIA, LOE B). Brain imaging is indicated for IE patients with neurological symptoms (COR I, LOE B), but anticoagulation management requires a nuanced approach that takes all risks and benefits into consideration (COR I, LOE C).
Key steps during surgery involve mandatory intraoperative TEE (COR I, LOE B), median sternotomy with few exceptions (COR I, LOE B), and radical debridement and removal of all infected and necrotic tissue (COR I, LOE B). The writers also provided four guidelines for reconstruction and valve replacement:
- Repair when possible for patients with NVE (COR I, LOE B).
- When replacement is indicated, the surgeon should base valve choice on normal criteria – age, life expectancy, comorbidities, and expected compliance with anticoagulation (COR I, LOE B).
- Avoid use of mechanical valves in patients with intracranial bleeding or who have had a major stroke (COR IIA, LOE C).
- In patients with invasive disease and deconstruction, reconstruction should depend on the involved valve, severity of destruction, and available options for cardiac reconstruction (COR I, LOE B).
The AATS guidelines also challenge conventional thinking on the practice of soaking a gel-impregnated graft with antimicrobials targeting a specific organism. “We found no evidence to support this practice,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said (COR IIB, LOE B). They came to the same conclusion with regard to the use of local antimicrobials or antiseptics during irrigation after debridement and local injection of antimicrobials around the infected area (COR I, LOE C).
The guidelines provide direction on a host of other surgical issues in IE: use of aortic valve grafts; when to remove or replace noninfected grafts; when to remove pacemakers; the role of drainage; postoperative management; follow-up; and additional screening. They also shed insight into what the guideline authors call “residual controversies,” including surgery for injection drug users (use “all available resources and options for drug rehabilitation”) and dialysis patients (“it is reasonable to offer surgery when the additional burden of comorbidities is not overwhelming”). They also acknowledge seven different scenarios that lack clear evidence for intervention but require the surgeon to determine the need for surgery, ranging from timing of surgery for IE in patients with neurologic complications to how to treat patients with functional valve issues after being cured of IE.
The guideline writers acknowledged that institutional funds supported the work. Dr. Pettersson had no financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction 5/172017: It was incorrectly stated that these complications were not addressed in the guidelines due to lack of evidence
Whether they’re intended to or not, guidelines like the AATS Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Endocarditis “can evolve into hard and fast principles, sometimes leading to incorrect decision making and even creating medicolegal problems for treating physicians,” Gus J. Vlahakes, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Nov 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.10.041).
Guidelines cannot “integrate all the necessary considerations,” Dr. Vlahakes said, so surgeons should view them as “a set of general principles to guide decision making.” In IE, that means having an experienced cardiac surgeon who can apply the guidelines on a case-by-case basis and a multidisciplinary team that includes an infectious disease specialist, he said. The surgeon must participate in preoperative management.
Dr. Vlahakes had no relevant financial disclosures.
Whether they’re intended to or not, guidelines like the AATS Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Endocarditis “can evolve into hard and fast principles, sometimes leading to incorrect decision making and even creating medicolegal problems for treating physicians,” Gus J. Vlahakes, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Nov 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.10.041).
Guidelines cannot “integrate all the necessary considerations,” Dr. Vlahakes said, so surgeons should view them as “a set of general principles to guide decision making.” In IE, that means having an experienced cardiac surgeon who can apply the guidelines on a case-by-case basis and a multidisciplinary team that includes an infectious disease specialist, he said. The surgeon must participate in preoperative management.
Dr. Vlahakes had no relevant financial disclosures.
Whether they’re intended to or not, guidelines like the AATS Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Endocarditis “can evolve into hard and fast principles, sometimes leading to incorrect decision making and even creating medicolegal problems for treating physicians,” Gus J. Vlahakes, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Nov 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.10.041).
Guidelines cannot “integrate all the necessary considerations,” Dr. Vlahakes said, so surgeons should view them as “a set of general principles to guide decision making.” In IE, that means having an experienced cardiac surgeon who can apply the guidelines on a case-by-case basis and a multidisciplinary team that includes an infectious disease specialist, he said. The surgeon must participate in preoperative management.
Dr. Vlahakes had no relevant financial disclosures.
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating complication of heart valve disease that, left untreated, can be fatal. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and many of the respective medical societies that represent the participating specialties have developed guidelines. Now, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery has published “Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis” to guide thoracic and cardiovascular surgeons in making decisions of when to operate in cases of IE (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.09.093).
The rationale for developing the guidelines is a growing prevalence of IE, including in patients with normal valves and no previous diagnosis of heart disease. “These new AATS consensus guidelines primarily address questions related to active and suspected active IE affective valves and intracardiac structures,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said. The AATS guidelines for infective endocarditis address complications including risk of embolism and the timing of surgery in patients with neurological complications, while acknowledging the the need for additional research into these topics.* “It is understood that surgery is beneficial only if the patient’s complications and other comorbidities do not preclude survival and meaningful recovery,” the guideline authors said.
The guidelines confirm the team approach for managing patients with IE. The team should include cardiology, infectious disease, cardiac surgery, and other specialties needed to handle IE-related complications (class of recommendation [COR] I, level of evidence [LOE] B). Before surgery, the surgeon should know the patient is on effective antimicrobial therapy (COR I, LOE B). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is indicated to yield the clearest understanding of the pathology (COR I, LOE B).
Dr. Pettersson and the guideline writing team also clarified indications for surgery in patients with IE. They include when valve dysfunction causes heart failure (COR I, LOE B); when, after a full course of antibiotics, the patient has signs of heart block, annular or aortic abscess or destructive penetrating lesions (COR I, LOE B); and in the setting of recurrent emboli and persistent vegetations despite appropriate antibiotic therapy (COR IIA, LOE B).
The guideline writers acknowledged potential disagreement between the AATS guidelines and those of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association with regard to early surgery in IE. Debate surrounds whether to operate early or wait for symptoms of heart failure to manifest in patients with native valve endocarditis (NVE). The AATS guideline authors cite work by Duk-Hyun Kang, MD, PhD, and coauthors in South Korea (N Engl J Med. 2012;366;2466-73) and others advocating for early surgery. “For this reason, once a surgical indication is evident, surgery should not be delayed,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said.
Several conditions can influence the timing of surgery. Patients with cerebral mycotic aneurysm should be managed closely with neurology or neurosurgery (COR I, LOE C). Patients with a recent intracranial hemorrhage should wait at least 3 weeks for surgery (COR IIA, LOE B), but those with nonhemorrhagic strokes could go in for urgent surgery (COR IIA, LOE B). Brain imaging is indicated for IE patients with neurological symptoms (COR I, LOE B), but anticoagulation management requires a nuanced approach that takes all risks and benefits into consideration (COR I, LOE C).
Key steps during surgery involve mandatory intraoperative TEE (COR I, LOE B), median sternotomy with few exceptions (COR I, LOE B), and radical debridement and removal of all infected and necrotic tissue (COR I, LOE B). The writers also provided four guidelines for reconstruction and valve replacement:
- Repair when possible for patients with NVE (COR I, LOE B).
- When replacement is indicated, the surgeon should base valve choice on normal criteria – age, life expectancy, comorbidities, and expected compliance with anticoagulation (COR I, LOE B).
- Avoid use of mechanical valves in patients with intracranial bleeding or who have had a major stroke (COR IIA, LOE C).
- In patients with invasive disease and deconstruction, reconstruction should depend on the involved valve, severity of destruction, and available options for cardiac reconstruction (COR I, LOE B).
The AATS guidelines also challenge conventional thinking on the practice of soaking a gel-impregnated graft with antimicrobials targeting a specific organism. “We found no evidence to support this practice,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said (COR IIB, LOE B). They came to the same conclusion with regard to the use of local antimicrobials or antiseptics during irrigation after debridement and local injection of antimicrobials around the infected area (COR I, LOE C).
The guidelines provide direction on a host of other surgical issues in IE: use of aortic valve grafts; when to remove or replace noninfected grafts; when to remove pacemakers; the role of drainage; postoperative management; follow-up; and additional screening. They also shed insight into what the guideline authors call “residual controversies,” including surgery for injection drug users (use “all available resources and options for drug rehabilitation”) and dialysis patients (“it is reasonable to offer surgery when the additional burden of comorbidities is not overwhelming”). They also acknowledge seven different scenarios that lack clear evidence for intervention but require the surgeon to determine the need for surgery, ranging from timing of surgery for IE in patients with neurologic complications to how to treat patients with functional valve issues after being cured of IE.
The guideline writers acknowledged that institutional funds supported the work. Dr. Pettersson had no financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction 5/172017: It was incorrectly stated that these complications were not addressed in the guidelines due to lack of evidence
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating complication of heart valve disease that, left untreated, can be fatal. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and many of the respective medical societies that represent the participating specialties have developed guidelines. Now, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery has published “Consensus Guidelines for the Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis” to guide thoracic and cardiovascular surgeons in making decisions of when to operate in cases of IE (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.09.093).
The rationale for developing the guidelines is a growing prevalence of IE, including in patients with normal valves and no previous diagnosis of heart disease. “These new AATS consensus guidelines primarily address questions related to active and suspected active IE affective valves and intracardiac structures,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said. The AATS guidelines for infective endocarditis address complications including risk of embolism and the timing of surgery in patients with neurological complications, while acknowledging the the need for additional research into these topics.* “It is understood that surgery is beneficial only if the patient’s complications and other comorbidities do not preclude survival and meaningful recovery,” the guideline authors said.
The guidelines confirm the team approach for managing patients with IE. The team should include cardiology, infectious disease, cardiac surgery, and other specialties needed to handle IE-related complications (class of recommendation [COR] I, level of evidence [LOE] B). Before surgery, the surgeon should know the patient is on effective antimicrobial therapy (COR I, LOE B). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is indicated to yield the clearest understanding of the pathology (COR I, LOE B).
Dr. Pettersson and the guideline writing team also clarified indications for surgery in patients with IE. They include when valve dysfunction causes heart failure (COR I, LOE B); when, after a full course of antibiotics, the patient has signs of heart block, annular or aortic abscess or destructive penetrating lesions (COR I, LOE B); and in the setting of recurrent emboli and persistent vegetations despite appropriate antibiotic therapy (COR IIA, LOE B).
The guideline writers acknowledged potential disagreement between the AATS guidelines and those of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association with regard to early surgery in IE. Debate surrounds whether to operate early or wait for symptoms of heart failure to manifest in patients with native valve endocarditis (NVE). The AATS guideline authors cite work by Duk-Hyun Kang, MD, PhD, and coauthors in South Korea (N Engl J Med. 2012;366;2466-73) and others advocating for early surgery. “For this reason, once a surgical indication is evident, surgery should not be delayed,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said.
Several conditions can influence the timing of surgery. Patients with cerebral mycotic aneurysm should be managed closely with neurology or neurosurgery (COR I, LOE C). Patients with a recent intracranial hemorrhage should wait at least 3 weeks for surgery (COR IIA, LOE B), but those with nonhemorrhagic strokes could go in for urgent surgery (COR IIA, LOE B). Brain imaging is indicated for IE patients with neurological symptoms (COR I, LOE B), but anticoagulation management requires a nuanced approach that takes all risks and benefits into consideration (COR I, LOE C).
Key steps during surgery involve mandatory intraoperative TEE (COR I, LOE B), median sternotomy with few exceptions (COR I, LOE B), and radical debridement and removal of all infected and necrotic tissue (COR I, LOE B). The writers also provided four guidelines for reconstruction and valve replacement:
- Repair when possible for patients with NVE (COR I, LOE B).
- When replacement is indicated, the surgeon should base valve choice on normal criteria – age, life expectancy, comorbidities, and expected compliance with anticoagulation (COR I, LOE B).
- Avoid use of mechanical valves in patients with intracranial bleeding or who have had a major stroke (COR IIA, LOE C).
- In patients with invasive disease and deconstruction, reconstruction should depend on the involved valve, severity of destruction, and available options for cardiac reconstruction (COR I, LOE B).
The AATS guidelines also challenge conventional thinking on the practice of soaking a gel-impregnated graft with antimicrobials targeting a specific organism. “We found no evidence to support this practice,” Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors said (COR IIB, LOE B). They came to the same conclusion with regard to the use of local antimicrobials or antiseptics during irrigation after debridement and local injection of antimicrobials around the infected area (COR I, LOE C).
The guidelines provide direction on a host of other surgical issues in IE: use of aortic valve grafts; when to remove or replace noninfected grafts; when to remove pacemakers; the role of drainage; postoperative management; follow-up; and additional screening. They also shed insight into what the guideline authors call “residual controversies,” including surgery for injection drug users (use “all available resources and options for drug rehabilitation”) and dialysis patients (“it is reasonable to offer surgery when the additional burden of comorbidities is not overwhelming”). They also acknowledge seven different scenarios that lack clear evidence for intervention but require the surgeon to determine the need for surgery, ranging from timing of surgery for IE in patients with neurologic complications to how to treat patients with functional valve issues after being cured of IE.
The guideline writers acknowledged that institutional funds supported the work. Dr. Pettersson had no financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction 5/172017: It was incorrectly stated that these complications were not addressed in the guidelines due to lack of evidence
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Key clinical point: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery charged a committee of eight members to author “Consensus Guidelines: Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis.”
Major finding: Patients with infective endocarditis need early input from the responsible cardiac surgeon, who must also lead the care team in evaluation, decision- making, and ultimately carrying out surgery as needed.
Data source: The writing committee followed Institute of Medicine standards for clinical practice guidelines, invited comment from a group of 12 multidisciplinary specialists and reviewed 288 articles in drafting the guidelines.
Disclosures: Institutional funds supported the work. Dr. Pettersson and his coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Orbital, over rotational, atherectomy holds survival edge in elderly, obese
WASHINGTON – Orbital atherectomy (OA) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than rotational atherectomy (RA) in female, obese, and elderly study groups, according to data from a prospective observational study.
Each procedure was employed to treat coronary artery calcifications (CAC) in the elderly and the obese prior to percutaneous interventions (PCI).
The data comparing OA with RA in these populations were drawn from the Clinical Outcomes of Atherectomy Prior to PCI (COAP) study, for which Perwaiz M. Meraj, MD, director of structural heart and peripheral vascular disease at the North Shore-LIJ Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y., served as the senior author.
Each set of data, as well as a third set of data comparing OA to RA in female patients, was presented separately at CRT 2017, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.
In the comparison of OA to RA in the elderly, a substudy known as COAP-75, the focus was on patients 75 years of age or older who underwent either OA or RA to remove calcified coronary lesions within the context of PCI. As with the obese and female subgroups, the elderly patients in this study were drawn from 35,590 patients who underwent PCI at one of five tertiary care hospitals in a recent 5-year period.
Of the 310 elderly patients undergoing atherectomy, 117 were treated with OA and 193 with RA. The median lesion lengths and diameters were not significantly different between the two groups. Although OA was less likely to be performed through femoral access (53% vs. 68.9%; P = .005), no other measured differences in procedure were significant, with one exception: Fluoroscopy exposure was of shorter duration in the OA, versus the RA, arm (24.0 minutes vs. 29.4 minutes; P = .005).
On univariate analysis, the lower rate of in-hospital deaths for OA did not reach statistical significance (0% vs. 1.55%; P = .176), but the difference was significant on multivariate-adjusted analysis (P = .034).
There were also higher numerical rates of perforation, tamponade, heart failure, and red blood cell transfusion in the RA group, versus the OA group, but only the latter was significant (P = .002) on multivariate-adjusted analysis.
In contrast, there was a higher rate of MI among those treated with OA, rather than RA (17.1% vs. 13.5%), which was not significant on univariate analysis (P = .573) but did reach significance on adjusted-multivariate analysis (P = .008).
Overall, the authors suggested that both OA and RA are safe procedures, but the mortality reduction suggests a potential relative advantage for OA.
Similar conclusions were reached in the substudy of patients with obesity, called COAP-BMI. In that study, 222 patients were evaluated, of which 91 were treated with OA and 131 were treated with RA.
In-hospital mortality was 0% in the group treated with OA, compared with 3.05% in the group treated with RA (P = .004). The rate of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events was also significantly lower in the OA group (15.4% vs. 16.3%; P = .007).
“The rate of secondary outcomes for myocardial infarction and stroke were similar between groups, as were individual procedural safety endpoints, including dissection, perforation, tamponade, or heart failure,” reported Evan Shlofmitz, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwell Health, Manhasset, N.Y., who collaborated with Dr. Meraj and presented the data at the meeting.
As with the study in the elderly, for which Dr. Shlofmitz was also a coauthor, the study in the obese is the first to compare OA and RA, he noted.
In a third substudy, called COAP-Female, OA and RA were compared in 247 women with CAC who were undergoing PCI.
Again, in-hospital mortality rates were higher in those treated with RA, compared with OA, but the difference was not significant (0.79% vs. 0%; P = .254). There were also no significant differences in any secondary outcomes, including MI, or in any procedural complications, such as rates of dissection, perforation, or major bleeding.
The only significant difference identified in the study was a lower fluoroscopy time in those treated with OA relative to RA (21.3 minutes vs. 27.6 minutes; P = .001).
Although fluoroscopy time was not a primary endpoint, “a reduction in radiation exposure has important ramifications for both patients and operators,” Dr. Shlofmitz noted. He suggested that objective data on outcomes in females is needed, because this group has been “severely underrepresented in atherectomy trials.”
Overall, the substudies reinforce a large body of evidence that atherectomy is safe and effective for achieving revascularization in patients undergoing PCI who have CAC, Dr. Shlofmitz concluded. However, the significant mortality advantage for OA relative to RA in the elderly and the obese suggests that the approaches may not be interchangeable.
Dr. Shlofmitz reported no financial relationships to disclose.
WASHINGTON – Orbital atherectomy (OA) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than rotational atherectomy (RA) in female, obese, and elderly study groups, according to data from a prospective observational study.
Each procedure was employed to treat coronary artery calcifications (CAC) in the elderly and the obese prior to percutaneous interventions (PCI).
The data comparing OA with RA in these populations were drawn from the Clinical Outcomes of Atherectomy Prior to PCI (COAP) study, for which Perwaiz M. Meraj, MD, director of structural heart and peripheral vascular disease at the North Shore-LIJ Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y., served as the senior author.
Each set of data, as well as a third set of data comparing OA to RA in female patients, was presented separately at CRT 2017, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.
In the comparison of OA to RA in the elderly, a substudy known as COAP-75, the focus was on patients 75 years of age or older who underwent either OA or RA to remove calcified coronary lesions within the context of PCI. As with the obese and female subgroups, the elderly patients in this study were drawn from 35,590 patients who underwent PCI at one of five tertiary care hospitals in a recent 5-year period.
Of the 310 elderly patients undergoing atherectomy, 117 were treated with OA and 193 with RA. The median lesion lengths and diameters were not significantly different between the two groups. Although OA was less likely to be performed through femoral access (53% vs. 68.9%; P = .005), no other measured differences in procedure were significant, with one exception: Fluoroscopy exposure was of shorter duration in the OA, versus the RA, arm (24.0 minutes vs. 29.4 minutes; P = .005).
On univariate analysis, the lower rate of in-hospital deaths for OA did not reach statistical significance (0% vs. 1.55%; P = .176), but the difference was significant on multivariate-adjusted analysis (P = .034).
There were also higher numerical rates of perforation, tamponade, heart failure, and red blood cell transfusion in the RA group, versus the OA group, but only the latter was significant (P = .002) on multivariate-adjusted analysis.
In contrast, there was a higher rate of MI among those treated with OA, rather than RA (17.1% vs. 13.5%), which was not significant on univariate analysis (P = .573) but did reach significance on adjusted-multivariate analysis (P = .008).
Overall, the authors suggested that both OA and RA are safe procedures, but the mortality reduction suggests a potential relative advantage for OA.
Similar conclusions were reached in the substudy of patients with obesity, called COAP-BMI. In that study, 222 patients were evaluated, of which 91 were treated with OA and 131 were treated with RA.
In-hospital mortality was 0% in the group treated with OA, compared with 3.05% in the group treated with RA (P = .004). The rate of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events was also significantly lower in the OA group (15.4% vs. 16.3%; P = .007).
“The rate of secondary outcomes for myocardial infarction and stroke were similar between groups, as were individual procedural safety endpoints, including dissection, perforation, tamponade, or heart failure,” reported Evan Shlofmitz, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwell Health, Manhasset, N.Y., who collaborated with Dr. Meraj and presented the data at the meeting.
As with the study in the elderly, for which Dr. Shlofmitz was also a coauthor, the study in the obese is the first to compare OA and RA, he noted.
In a third substudy, called COAP-Female, OA and RA were compared in 247 women with CAC who were undergoing PCI.
Again, in-hospital mortality rates were higher in those treated with RA, compared with OA, but the difference was not significant (0.79% vs. 0%; P = .254). There were also no significant differences in any secondary outcomes, including MI, or in any procedural complications, such as rates of dissection, perforation, or major bleeding.
The only significant difference identified in the study was a lower fluoroscopy time in those treated with OA relative to RA (21.3 minutes vs. 27.6 minutes; P = .001).
Although fluoroscopy time was not a primary endpoint, “a reduction in radiation exposure has important ramifications for both patients and operators,” Dr. Shlofmitz noted. He suggested that objective data on outcomes in females is needed, because this group has been “severely underrepresented in atherectomy trials.”
Overall, the substudies reinforce a large body of evidence that atherectomy is safe and effective for achieving revascularization in patients undergoing PCI who have CAC, Dr. Shlofmitz concluded. However, the significant mortality advantage for OA relative to RA in the elderly and the obese suggests that the approaches may not be interchangeable.
Dr. Shlofmitz reported no financial relationships to disclose.
WASHINGTON – Orbital atherectomy (OA) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than rotational atherectomy (RA) in female, obese, and elderly study groups, according to data from a prospective observational study.
Each procedure was employed to treat coronary artery calcifications (CAC) in the elderly and the obese prior to percutaneous interventions (PCI).
The data comparing OA with RA in these populations were drawn from the Clinical Outcomes of Atherectomy Prior to PCI (COAP) study, for which Perwaiz M. Meraj, MD, director of structural heart and peripheral vascular disease at the North Shore-LIJ Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y., served as the senior author.
Each set of data, as well as a third set of data comparing OA to RA in female patients, was presented separately at CRT 2017, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.
In the comparison of OA to RA in the elderly, a substudy known as COAP-75, the focus was on patients 75 years of age or older who underwent either OA or RA to remove calcified coronary lesions within the context of PCI. As with the obese and female subgroups, the elderly patients in this study were drawn from 35,590 patients who underwent PCI at one of five tertiary care hospitals in a recent 5-year period.
Of the 310 elderly patients undergoing atherectomy, 117 were treated with OA and 193 with RA. The median lesion lengths and diameters were not significantly different between the two groups. Although OA was less likely to be performed through femoral access (53% vs. 68.9%; P = .005), no other measured differences in procedure were significant, with one exception: Fluoroscopy exposure was of shorter duration in the OA, versus the RA, arm (24.0 minutes vs. 29.4 minutes; P = .005).
On univariate analysis, the lower rate of in-hospital deaths for OA did not reach statistical significance (0% vs. 1.55%; P = .176), but the difference was significant on multivariate-adjusted analysis (P = .034).
There were also higher numerical rates of perforation, tamponade, heart failure, and red blood cell transfusion in the RA group, versus the OA group, but only the latter was significant (P = .002) on multivariate-adjusted analysis.
In contrast, there was a higher rate of MI among those treated with OA, rather than RA (17.1% vs. 13.5%), which was not significant on univariate analysis (P = .573) but did reach significance on adjusted-multivariate analysis (P = .008).
Overall, the authors suggested that both OA and RA are safe procedures, but the mortality reduction suggests a potential relative advantage for OA.
Similar conclusions were reached in the substudy of patients with obesity, called COAP-BMI. In that study, 222 patients were evaluated, of which 91 were treated with OA and 131 were treated with RA.
In-hospital mortality was 0% in the group treated with OA, compared with 3.05% in the group treated with RA (P = .004). The rate of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events was also significantly lower in the OA group (15.4% vs. 16.3%; P = .007).
“The rate of secondary outcomes for myocardial infarction and stroke were similar between groups, as were individual procedural safety endpoints, including dissection, perforation, tamponade, or heart failure,” reported Evan Shlofmitz, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwell Health, Manhasset, N.Y., who collaborated with Dr. Meraj and presented the data at the meeting.
As with the study in the elderly, for which Dr. Shlofmitz was also a coauthor, the study in the obese is the first to compare OA and RA, he noted.
In a third substudy, called COAP-Female, OA and RA were compared in 247 women with CAC who were undergoing PCI.
Again, in-hospital mortality rates were higher in those treated with RA, compared with OA, but the difference was not significant (0.79% vs. 0%; P = .254). There were also no significant differences in any secondary outcomes, including MI, or in any procedural complications, such as rates of dissection, perforation, or major bleeding.
The only significant difference identified in the study was a lower fluoroscopy time in those treated with OA relative to RA (21.3 minutes vs. 27.6 minutes; P = .001).
Although fluoroscopy time was not a primary endpoint, “a reduction in radiation exposure has important ramifications for both patients and operators,” Dr. Shlofmitz noted. He suggested that objective data on outcomes in females is needed, because this group has been “severely underrepresented in atherectomy trials.”
Overall, the substudies reinforce a large body of evidence that atherectomy is safe and effective for achieving revascularization in patients undergoing PCI who have CAC, Dr. Shlofmitz concluded. However, the significant mortality advantage for OA relative to RA in the elderly and the obese suggests that the approaches may not be interchangeable.
Dr. Shlofmitz reported no financial relationships to disclose.
AT CRT 2017
Key clinical point: Orbital atherectomy was associated with better survival than rotational atherectomy in elderly and obese patients requiring percutaneous interventions.
Major finding: In-hospital mortality was significantly lower after orbital atherectomy, compared with rotational atherectomy, in both the elderly (0% vs. 1.55%; P = .034) and the obese (0% vs. 3.05%; P = .004).
Data source: A nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter study.
Disclosures: Dr. Shlofmitz reported no financial relationships to disclose.
It’s been a good year for heart failure research ... mostly
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC 17
Routine U.S. mitral clip use found reassuring
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: U.S. mitral clip patients averaged 82 years of age, their acute success rate was 92%, and 1-year mortality was 26%.
Data source: A review of 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent transcatheter mitral clip repair and entered into the STS/ACC/TVT registry through September 2015.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
Coronary flow reserve reveals hidden cardiovascular risk
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Mounting evidence attests to the value of noninvasive measurement of coronary flow reserve as a means of classifying cardiovascular risk in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) more accurately than is possible via coronary angiography or measurement of fractional flow reserve, Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, reported at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“We use CFR [coronary flow reserve] as a way to exclude coronary disease. It’s a good practical measure of multivessel ischemic CAD. When the CFR is normal, you can with high confidence exclude the possibility of high-risk CAD,” according to Dr. Di Carli, executive director of the cardiovascular imaging program and chief of the division of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Most recently, he and his coinvestigators utilized CFR to provide new insight into the paradox that women have a higher cardiovascular disease death rate than men, even though their prevalence of obstructive CAD is lower.
Their NIH-sponsored study included 329 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% – 43% of them women – who underwent coronary angiography several days after noninvasive assessment of CFR via myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography. The women had a lower burden of angiographic CAD and a lower pretest clinical risk score than the men. Nevertheless, during a median of 3 years of follow-up, the women had an adjusted twofold greater risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or heart failure.
This excess cardiovascular risk in women was independently associated with a very low CFR, defined as less than 1.6. Dr. Di Carli and his coinvestigators calculated that this impaired CFR mediated 40% of the excess risk in women. Thus, a low CFR represents a novel hidden biologic risk for ischemic heart disease (Circulation. 2017 Feb 7;135[6]:566-77).
CFR is defined as the ratio of absolute coronary flow or myocardial perfusion between drug-induced hyperemia and rest. It can be quantified noninvasively using positron emission tomography or MRI.
CFR integrates into a single measure the three components of CAD: the focal stenosis, the diffuse atherosclerotic plaque typically present to a varying degree throughout a target vessel, and microvascular dysfunction.
CFR is a measure of coronary physiology, as is invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, FFR measures only the severity of stenosis and extent of diffuse disease; it doesn’t assess microvascular dysfunction. This is a limitation because it means FFR can give false-negative readings in patients without significant obstructive coronary disease who have severe microvascular dysfunction.
As for angiography, Dr. Di Carli continued, it’s now evident that this purely anatomic assessment is of limited value as a marker of clinical risk and is inadequate to guide management decisions in the setting of stable CAD. After all, angiographically guided revascularization has not reduced cardiovascular events in clinical trials comparing it with optimal medical therapy, as in the COURAGE and BARI-2D trials.
“It’s clear that there’s been a paradigm shift in how we manage patients with stable CAD. For many years the coronary angiogram was the cornerstone of what we did: how we understand the symptoms, the patient’s risk, and ultimately how we proceed with treatment. But there is no benefit in basing treatment solely on what the lesions look like anatomically. That’s why we’ve turned to functional testing of coronary physiology,” he said.
CFR has opened a window on the importance of microvascular dysfunction, which is present in about half of patients with stable CAD and has been shown to predict cardiovascular risk independent of whether or not severe obstructive disease is present.
In an earlier study, Dr. Di Carli and coworkers demonstrated that quantification of CFR enhances stratification for risk of cardiac death among diabetes patients (Circulation. 2012 Oct 9;126[15]:1858-68). The study included 2,783 patients, of whom 1,172 were diabetic, who underwent measurement of CFR and were subsequently followed for a median of 1.4 years, during which 137 cardiac deaths occurred.
Diabetes patients without known CAD who had a low CFR had a high cardiac death rate of 2.8%/year, similar to the 2.0%/year rate in nondiabetic patients with a history of acute MI or revascularization. On the other hand, diabetes patients with a normal CFR and without known CAD had a cardiac mortality rate of only 0.3%/year, comparable to the 0.5% rate in nondiabetics without known CAD who had preserved systolic function and a normal stress perfusion study.
In the future, CFR may aid in decision making as to whether an individual with stable CAD is best treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical revascularization, or guideline-directed medical therapy. For example, if CFR indicates the presence of an isolated severe focal stenosis, and this is confirmed by angiography and FFR, PCI may be the best option, while diffuse disease as demonstrated by CFR may be better treated surgically or using optimal medical therapy. But this needs to be established in prospective clinical trials, added Dr. Di Carli.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Mounting evidence attests to the value of noninvasive measurement of coronary flow reserve as a means of classifying cardiovascular risk in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) more accurately than is possible via coronary angiography or measurement of fractional flow reserve, Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, reported at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“We use CFR [coronary flow reserve] as a way to exclude coronary disease. It’s a good practical measure of multivessel ischemic CAD. When the CFR is normal, you can with high confidence exclude the possibility of high-risk CAD,” according to Dr. Di Carli, executive director of the cardiovascular imaging program and chief of the division of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Most recently, he and his coinvestigators utilized CFR to provide new insight into the paradox that women have a higher cardiovascular disease death rate than men, even though their prevalence of obstructive CAD is lower.
Their NIH-sponsored study included 329 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% – 43% of them women – who underwent coronary angiography several days after noninvasive assessment of CFR via myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography. The women had a lower burden of angiographic CAD and a lower pretest clinical risk score than the men. Nevertheless, during a median of 3 years of follow-up, the women had an adjusted twofold greater risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or heart failure.
This excess cardiovascular risk in women was independently associated with a very low CFR, defined as less than 1.6. Dr. Di Carli and his coinvestigators calculated that this impaired CFR mediated 40% of the excess risk in women. Thus, a low CFR represents a novel hidden biologic risk for ischemic heart disease (Circulation. 2017 Feb 7;135[6]:566-77).
CFR is defined as the ratio of absolute coronary flow or myocardial perfusion between drug-induced hyperemia and rest. It can be quantified noninvasively using positron emission tomography or MRI.
CFR integrates into a single measure the three components of CAD: the focal stenosis, the diffuse atherosclerotic plaque typically present to a varying degree throughout a target vessel, and microvascular dysfunction.
CFR is a measure of coronary physiology, as is invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, FFR measures only the severity of stenosis and extent of diffuse disease; it doesn’t assess microvascular dysfunction. This is a limitation because it means FFR can give false-negative readings in patients without significant obstructive coronary disease who have severe microvascular dysfunction.
As for angiography, Dr. Di Carli continued, it’s now evident that this purely anatomic assessment is of limited value as a marker of clinical risk and is inadequate to guide management decisions in the setting of stable CAD. After all, angiographically guided revascularization has not reduced cardiovascular events in clinical trials comparing it with optimal medical therapy, as in the COURAGE and BARI-2D trials.
“It’s clear that there’s been a paradigm shift in how we manage patients with stable CAD. For many years the coronary angiogram was the cornerstone of what we did: how we understand the symptoms, the patient’s risk, and ultimately how we proceed with treatment. But there is no benefit in basing treatment solely on what the lesions look like anatomically. That’s why we’ve turned to functional testing of coronary physiology,” he said.
CFR has opened a window on the importance of microvascular dysfunction, which is present in about half of patients with stable CAD and has been shown to predict cardiovascular risk independent of whether or not severe obstructive disease is present.
In an earlier study, Dr. Di Carli and coworkers demonstrated that quantification of CFR enhances stratification for risk of cardiac death among diabetes patients (Circulation. 2012 Oct 9;126[15]:1858-68). The study included 2,783 patients, of whom 1,172 were diabetic, who underwent measurement of CFR and were subsequently followed for a median of 1.4 years, during which 137 cardiac deaths occurred.
Diabetes patients without known CAD who had a low CFR had a high cardiac death rate of 2.8%/year, similar to the 2.0%/year rate in nondiabetic patients with a history of acute MI or revascularization. On the other hand, diabetes patients with a normal CFR and without known CAD had a cardiac mortality rate of only 0.3%/year, comparable to the 0.5% rate in nondiabetics without known CAD who had preserved systolic function and a normal stress perfusion study.
In the future, CFR may aid in decision making as to whether an individual with stable CAD is best treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical revascularization, or guideline-directed medical therapy. For example, if CFR indicates the presence of an isolated severe focal stenosis, and this is confirmed by angiography and FFR, PCI may be the best option, while diffuse disease as demonstrated by CFR may be better treated surgically or using optimal medical therapy. But this needs to be established in prospective clinical trials, added Dr. Di Carli.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Mounting evidence attests to the value of noninvasive measurement of coronary flow reserve as a means of classifying cardiovascular risk in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) more accurately than is possible via coronary angiography or measurement of fractional flow reserve, Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, reported at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“We use CFR [coronary flow reserve] as a way to exclude coronary disease. It’s a good practical measure of multivessel ischemic CAD. When the CFR is normal, you can with high confidence exclude the possibility of high-risk CAD,” according to Dr. Di Carli, executive director of the cardiovascular imaging program and chief of the division of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
Most recently, he and his coinvestigators utilized CFR to provide new insight into the paradox that women have a higher cardiovascular disease death rate than men, even though their prevalence of obstructive CAD is lower.
Their NIH-sponsored study included 329 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% – 43% of them women – who underwent coronary angiography several days after noninvasive assessment of CFR via myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography. The women had a lower burden of angiographic CAD and a lower pretest clinical risk score than the men. Nevertheless, during a median of 3 years of follow-up, the women had an adjusted twofold greater risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or heart failure.
This excess cardiovascular risk in women was independently associated with a very low CFR, defined as less than 1.6. Dr. Di Carli and his coinvestigators calculated that this impaired CFR mediated 40% of the excess risk in women. Thus, a low CFR represents a novel hidden biologic risk for ischemic heart disease (Circulation. 2017 Feb 7;135[6]:566-77).
CFR is defined as the ratio of absolute coronary flow or myocardial perfusion between drug-induced hyperemia and rest. It can be quantified noninvasively using positron emission tomography or MRI.
CFR integrates into a single measure the three components of CAD: the focal stenosis, the diffuse atherosclerotic plaque typically present to a varying degree throughout a target vessel, and microvascular dysfunction.
CFR is a measure of coronary physiology, as is invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, FFR measures only the severity of stenosis and extent of diffuse disease; it doesn’t assess microvascular dysfunction. This is a limitation because it means FFR can give false-negative readings in patients without significant obstructive coronary disease who have severe microvascular dysfunction.
As for angiography, Dr. Di Carli continued, it’s now evident that this purely anatomic assessment is of limited value as a marker of clinical risk and is inadequate to guide management decisions in the setting of stable CAD. After all, angiographically guided revascularization has not reduced cardiovascular events in clinical trials comparing it with optimal medical therapy, as in the COURAGE and BARI-2D trials.
“It’s clear that there’s been a paradigm shift in how we manage patients with stable CAD. For many years the coronary angiogram was the cornerstone of what we did: how we understand the symptoms, the patient’s risk, and ultimately how we proceed with treatment. But there is no benefit in basing treatment solely on what the lesions look like anatomically. That’s why we’ve turned to functional testing of coronary physiology,” he said.
CFR has opened a window on the importance of microvascular dysfunction, which is present in about half of patients with stable CAD and has been shown to predict cardiovascular risk independent of whether or not severe obstructive disease is present.
In an earlier study, Dr. Di Carli and coworkers demonstrated that quantification of CFR enhances stratification for risk of cardiac death among diabetes patients (Circulation. 2012 Oct 9;126[15]:1858-68). The study included 2,783 patients, of whom 1,172 were diabetic, who underwent measurement of CFR and were subsequently followed for a median of 1.4 years, during which 137 cardiac deaths occurred.
Diabetes patients without known CAD who had a low CFR had a high cardiac death rate of 2.8%/year, similar to the 2.0%/year rate in nondiabetic patients with a history of acute MI or revascularization. On the other hand, diabetes patients with a normal CFR and without known CAD had a cardiac mortality rate of only 0.3%/year, comparable to the 0.5% rate in nondiabetics without known CAD who had preserved systolic function and a normal stress perfusion study.
In the future, CFR may aid in decision making as to whether an individual with stable CAD is best treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical revascularization, or guideline-directed medical therapy. For example, if CFR indicates the presence of an isolated severe focal stenosis, and this is confirmed by angiography and FFR, PCI may be the best option, while diffuse disease as demonstrated by CFR may be better treated surgically or using optimal medical therapy. But this needs to be established in prospective clinical trials, added Dr. Di Carli.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CARDIOVASCULAR CONFERENCE AT SNOWMASS
Decision tool helps patients compare SAVR, TAVR
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In matched U.S. patients, TAVR led to 29% more patients being discharged home following their procedures, compared with SAVR.
Data source: Records for 9,464 U.S. patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR during 2011-2015.
Disclosures: Data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
Cell sheet transplantation improves ischemic cardiomyopathy at 1 year
For patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), transplanting sheets of autologous myoblasts onto the epicardial surface was safe and led to “marked” improvements in functional and laboratory measures, investigators reported.
However, cell sheet transplantation was much less effective for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in this phase I trial, wrote Shigeru Miyagawa, MD, PhD, of Osaka (Japan) University, and his associates in the Journal of the American Heart Association. The findings merit additional follow-up in larger clinical studies, the investigators asserted.
Heart failure remains life threatening even with the best approved treatments. Previously, the researchers transplanted scaffold-free sheets of autologous myoblasts derived from skeletal muscle into small and large animals with heart failure and found that this approach healed severely damaged myocardium. Transplantation caused secreted cytokines to induce native regeneration through paracrine effects, Dr. Miyagawa noted in a prior review article (BioMed Research International. 2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/583912).
To evaluate this approach in humans, the researchers transplanted 15 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 12 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Patients were 20-75 years old, had ejection fractions under 35% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classifications of II or more, and were responding inadequately to standard treatment with a beta-blocker or ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. The sole intervention was transplantation of the cell sheet over the left ventricular-free wall during left thoracotomy (J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003918). There were no major procedure-related complications during follow-up, the researchers said. For patients with ICM, NYHA classifications dropped significantly at 6 months, from 2.9 at baseline to 2.1 at 6 months and 1.9 at 1 year. Six-Minute Walk Test scores improved significantly, from 416 m at baseline to 475 m at 6 months to 484 m at 1 year. Transplantation also led to significant drops in serum brain natriuretic peptide levels (baseline average, 308 pg/mL; 6 months, 191 pg/mL; 1 year, 182 pg/mL). Additionally, ICM patients improved significantly on measures of pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary vein resistance, and left ventricular wall stress.
In contrast, DCM patients did not significantly improve based on the 6-Minute Walk Test, NYHA classification, or brain natriuretic peptide serum levels. Of 12, 3 progressed to NYHA functional class IV by 1-year follow-up and there were five cardiac deaths. There were no cardiac deaths in the ICM group. “It has been reported that regeneration mechanisms in cell sheet mainly depend on angiogenesis induced by secreted cytokines, so cell-sheet implantation may be more suitable for ICM patients, compared with DCM patients, considering pathophysiological aspects,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by grants from Regenerative Medicine for Clinical Application, Health and Labor Sciences Research, and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The investigators disclosed laboratory funding from Terumo for cooperative research in cell sheet.
For patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), transplanting sheets of autologous myoblasts onto the epicardial surface was safe and led to “marked” improvements in functional and laboratory measures, investigators reported.
However, cell sheet transplantation was much less effective for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in this phase I trial, wrote Shigeru Miyagawa, MD, PhD, of Osaka (Japan) University, and his associates in the Journal of the American Heart Association. The findings merit additional follow-up in larger clinical studies, the investigators asserted.
Heart failure remains life threatening even with the best approved treatments. Previously, the researchers transplanted scaffold-free sheets of autologous myoblasts derived from skeletal muscle into small and large animals with heart failure and found that this approach healed severely damaged myocardium. Transplantation caused secreted cytokines to induce native regeneration through paracrine effects, Dr. Miyagawa noted in a prior review article (BioMed Research International. 2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/583912).
To evaluate this approach in humans, the researchers transplanted 15 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 12 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Patients were 20-75 years old, had ejection fractions under 35% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classifications of II or more, and were responding inadequately to standard treatment with a beta-blocker or ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. The sole intervention was transplantation of the cell sheet over the left ventricular-free wall during left thoracotomy (J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003918). There were no major procedure-related complications during follow-up, the researchers said. For patients with ICM, NYHA classifications dropped significantly at 6 months, from 2.9 at baseline to 2.1 at 6 months and 1.9 at 1 year. Six-Minute Walk Test scores improved significantly, from 416 m at baseline to 475 m at 6 months to 484 m at 1 year. Transplantation also led to significant drops in serum brain natriuretic peptide levels (baseline average, 308 pg/mL; 6 months, 191 pg/mL; 1 year, 182 pg/mL). Additionally, ICM patients improved significantly on measures of pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary vein resistance, and left ventricular wall stress.
In contrast, DCM patients did not significantly improve based on the 6-Minute Walk Test, NYHA classification, or brain natriuretic peptide serum levels. Of 12, 3 progressed to NYHA functional class IV by 1-year follow-up and there were five cardiac deaths. There were no cardiac deaths in the ICM group. “It has been reported that regeneration mechanisms in cell sheet mainly depend on angiogenesis induced by secreted cytokines, so cell-sheet implantation may be more suitable for ICM patients, compared with DCM patients, considering pathophysiological aspects,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by grants from Regenerative Medicine for Clinical Application, Health and Labor Sciences Research, and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The investigators disclosed laboratory funding from Terumo for cooperative research in cell sheet.
For patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), transplanting sheets of autologous myoblasts onto the epicardial surface was safe and led to “marked” improvements in functional and laboratory measures, investigators reported.
However, cell sheet transplantation was much less effective for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in this phase I trial, wrote Shigeru Miyagawa, MD, PhD, of Osaka (Japan) University, and his associates in the Journal of the American Heart Association. The findings merit additional follow-up in larger clinical studies, the investigators asserted.
Heart failure remains life threatening even with the best approved treatments. Previously, the researchers transplanted scaffold-free sheets of autologous myoblasts derived from skeletal muscle into small and large animals with heart failure and found that this approach healed severely damaged myocardium. Transplantation caused secreted cytokines to induce native regeneration through paracrine effects, Dr. Miyagawa noted in a prior review article (BioMed Research International. 2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/583912).
To evaluate this approach in humans, the researchers transplanted 15 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 12 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Patients were 20-75 years old, had ejection fractions under 35% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classifications of II or more, and were responding inadequately to standard treatment with a beta-blocker or ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. The sole intervention was transplantation of the cell sheet over the left ventricular-free wall during left thoracotomy (J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 5. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003918). There were no major procedure-related complications during follow-up, the researchers said. For patients with ICM, NYHA classifications dropped significantly at 6 months, from 2.9 at baseline to 2.1 at 6 months and 1.9 at 1 year. Six-Minute Walk Test scores improved significantly, from 416 m at baseline to 475 m at 6 months to 484 m at 1 year. Transplantation also led to significant drops in serum brain natriuretic peptide levels (baseline average, 308 pg/mL; 6 months, 191 pg/mL; 1 year, 182 pg/mL). Additionally, ICM patients improved significantly on measures of pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary vein resistance, and left ventricular wall stress.
In contrast, DCM patients did not significantly improve based on the 6-Minute Walk Test, NYHA classification, or brain natriuretic peptide serum levels. Of 12, 3 progressed to NYHA functional class IV by 1-year follow-up and there were five cardiac deaths. There were no cardiac deaths in the ICM group. “It has been reported that regeneration mechanisms in cell sheet mainly depend on angiogenesis induced by secreted cytokines, so cell-sheet implantation may be more suitable for ICM patients, compared with DCM patients, considering pathophysiological aspects,” the researchers wrote.
The study was funded by grants from Regenerative Medicine for Clinical Application, Health and Labor Sciences Research, and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The investigators disclosed laboratory funding from Terumo for cooperative research in cell sheet.
Key clinical point: Transplanting a sheet of autologous myoblasts onto the epicardial surface was safe and was associated with functional and symptomatic improvements in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Major finding: Patients improved significantly on the 6-Minute Walk Test, New York Heart Classification, and on measures of brain natriuretic peptide, pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary vein resistance, and left ventricular wall stress. These effects did not extend to patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.
Data source: A phase I trial of 27 patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy.
Disclosures: The study was funded by grants from Regenerative Medicine for Clinical Application, Health and Labor Sciences Research, and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. The investigators disclosed laboratory funding from Terumo for cooperative research in cell sheet.
Uptake of new heart failure drugs slow despite guidelines
SNOWMASS, COLO. – As William T. Abraham, MD, speaks to colleagues around the country about heart failure therapy, he has noticed that the first-in-class drug ivabradine remains below the radar of most physicians.
“I’ve found that this is an agent that very few people know about, even though it’s been FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved for about 3 years. It’s used fairly extensively in Europe because that’s where the pivotal SHIFT trial was done, but not very much in the United States,” according to Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
That’s likely to change as word spreads about the May 2016 update of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The update incorporated evidence-based recommendations on the use of two important new heart failure medications: ivabradine (Corlanor), which received a moderate class IIa recommendation, meaning the drug “should be considered,” and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which received the strongest class I recommendation.
In the right patients, these two oral medications improve heart failure morbidity and mortality significantly beyond what’s achievable with what has been the gold standard, guideline-directed medical therapy. Dr. Abraham described how to get started using the two medications at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
Ivabradine
Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the sinoatrial pacemaker modulating I(f) current. It acts by slowing the sinus rate without reducing myocardial contractility.
“This agent does one thing and one thing alone: It lowers heart rate,” the cardiologist explained.
And that, he added, was sufficient to significantly reduce the risks of death due to heart failure and recurrent hospitalization for worsening heart failure in the pivotal SHIFT trial.
SHIFT included 6,505 patients with moderate to severe heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a resting heart rate above 70 bpm despite background guideline-directed medical therapy. Participants were randomized double blind to ivabradine titrated to a maximum of 7.5 mg twice daily or placebo and followed for a median of about 23 months. The rate of death due to heart failure was 3% with ivabradine and 5% with placebo, for a statistically significant 26% relative risk reduction favoring ivabradine.
But the drug’s main benefit was in reducing recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure, an endpoint of particular interest to health policy officials given that heart failure hospitalizations chew up a substantial proportion of the Medicare budget. Ivabradine reduced first hospitalizations for heart failure during the study period by 25%, second hospitalizations by 34%, and third hospitalizations by 29% (Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov;33[22]:2813-20).
The ACC/AHA guideline update stresses the importance of reserving ivabradine for heart failure patients whose resting heart rate exceeds 70 bpm, despite being on their maximum tolerated dose of a beta-blocker, Dr. Abraham noted.
Ivabradine is contraindicated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure, severe liver disease, or hypotension, in patients on any of the numerous agents that strongly inhibit the enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, and in those who have sick sinus syndrome, have sinoatrial block, or are pacemaker dependent.
Sacubitril/valsartan
Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, an enzyme that blocks the action of endogenous vasoactive peptides including bradykinin, substance P, and natriuretic peptides, all of which counter important maladaptive mechanisms in heart failure. Sacubitril has been combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan to form the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, formerly known as LCZ696 and now marketed as Entresto.
In the pivotal double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial, 8,442 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to the ARNI at 200 mg b.i.d. or to enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d. on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The trial was stopped early because of evidence of overwhelming benefit: a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death and a 21% decrease in the risk of heart failure hospitalizations in the sacubitril/valsartan group, as well as significant reductions in heart failure symptoms and physical limitations (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
The updated heart failure guidelines strongly recommend that patients with heart failure should be treated with either an ACE inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, or an ARNI. Further, patients who remain symptomatic on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be switched to an ARNI; that’s a class Ib recommendation based upon the results of PARADIGM-HF.
In getting started using the ARNI, Dr. Abraham said it’s important to understand as background the selective nature of the PARADIGM-HF study design. During the single-blind run-in period of 5-8 weeks, roughly 10% of patients dropped out because they couldn’t tolerate enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d., and a similar percentage dropped out during the ARNI run-in. Thus, patients who couldn’t tolerate a low dose of an ACE inhibitor weren’t in the study. And patients capable of tolerating guideline-recommended full-dose ACE inhibitor therapy were not specifically sought for participation.
“So there are some unanswered questions about the ARNI. If you’re just getting started with this compound in treating your heart failure patients, my own feeling is you should maybe aim for the type of patient that was included in this trial: patients who could tolerate a moderate dose of an ACE inhibitor and had generally good blood pressure. That’s a great way to begin to get experience with this agent in heart failure,” the cardiologist advised.
He reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – As William T. Abraham, MD, speaks to colleagues around the country about heart failure therapy, he has noticed that the first-in-class drug ivabradine remains below the radar of most physicians.
“I’ve found that this is an agent that very few people know about, even though it’s been FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved for about 3 years. It’s used fairly extensively in Europe because that’s where the pivotal SHIFT trial was done, but not very much in the United States,” according to Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
That’s likely to change as word spreads about the May 2016 update of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The update incorporated evidence-based recommendations on the use of two important new heart failure medications: ivabradine (Corlanor), which received a moderate class IIa recommendation, meaning the drug “should be considered,” and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which received the strongest class I recommendation.
In the right patients, these two oral medications improve heart failure morbidity and mortality significantly beyond what’s achievable with what has been the gold standard, guideline-directed medical therapy. Dr. Abraham described how to get started using the two medications at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
Ivabradine
Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the sinoatrial pacemaker modulating I(f) current. It acts by slowing the sinus rate without reducing myocardial contractility.
“This agent does one thing and one thing alone: It lowers heart rate,” the cardiologist explained.
And that, he added, was sufficient to significantly reduce the risks of death due to heart failure and recurrent hospitalization for worsening heart failure in the pivotal SHIFT trial.
SHIFT included 6,505 patients with moderate to severe heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a resting heart rate above 70 bpm despite background guideline-directed medical therapy. Participants were randomized double blind to ivabradine titrated to a maximum of 7.5 mg twice daily or placebo and followed for a median of about 23 months. The rate of death due to heart failure was 3% with ivabradine and 5% with placebo, for a statistically significant 26% relative risk reduction favoring ivabradine.
But the drug’s main benefit was in reducing recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure, an endpoint of particular interest to health policy officials given that heart failure hospitalizations chew up a substantial proportion of the Medicare budget. Ivabradine reduced first hospitalizations for heart failure during the study period by 25%, second hospitalizations by 34%, and third hospitalizations by 29% (Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov;33[22]:2813-20).
The ACC/AHA guideline update stresses the importance of reserving ivabradine for heart failure patients whose resting heart rate exceeds 70 bpm, despite being on their maximum tolerated dose of a beta-blocker, Dr. Abraham noted.
Ivabradine is contraindicated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure, severe liver disease, or hypotension, in patients on any of the numerous agents that strongly inhibit the enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, and in those who have sick sinus syndrome, have sinoatrial block, or are pacemaker dependent.
Sacubitril/valsartan
Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, an enzyme that blocks the action of endogenous vasoactive peptides including bradykinin, substance P, and natriuretic peptides, all of which counter important maladaptive mechanisms in heart failure. Sacubitril has been combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan to form the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, formerly known as LCZ696 and now marketed as Entresto.
In the pivotal double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial, 8,442 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to the ARNI at 200 mg b.i.d. or to enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d. on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The trial was stopped early because of evidence of overwhelming benefit: a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death and a 21% decrease in the risk of heart failure hospitalizations in the sacubitril/valsartan group, as well as significant reductions in heart failure symptoms and physical limitations (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
The updated heart failure guidelines strongly recommend that patients with heart failure should be treated with either an ACE inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, or an ARNI. Further, patients who remain symptomatic on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be switched to an ARNI; that’s a class Ib recommendation based upon the results of PARADIGM-HF.
In getting started using the ARNI, Dr. Abraham said it’s important to understand as background the selective nature of the PARADIGM-HF study design. During the single-blind run-in period of 5-8 weeks, roughly 10% of patients dropped out because they couldn’t tolerate enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d., and a similar percentage dropped out during the ARNI run-in. Thus, patients who couldn’t tolerate a low dose of an ACE inhibitor weren’t in the study. And patients capable of tolerating guideline-recommended full-dose ACE inhibitor therapy were not specifically sought for participation.
“So there are some unanswered questions about the ARNI. If you’re just getting started with this compound in treating your heart failure patients, my own feeling is you should maybe aim for the type of patient that was included in this trial: patients who could tolerate a moderate dose of an ACE inhibitor and had generally good blood pressure. That’s a great way to begin to get experience with this agent in heart failure,” the cardiologist advised.
He reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – As William T. Abraham, MD, speaks to colleagues around the country about heart failure therapy, he has noticed that the first-in-class drug ivabradine remains below the radar of most physicians.
“I’ve found that this is an agent that very few people know about, even though it’s been FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved for about 3 years. It’s used fairly extensively in Europe because that’s where the pivotal SHIFT trial was done, but not very much in the United States,” according to Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology and director of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.
That’s likely to change as word spreads about the May 2016 update of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The update incorporated evidence-based recommendations on the use of two important new heart failure medications: ivabradine (Corlanor), which received a moderate class IIa recommendation, meaning the drug “should be considered,” and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which received the strongest class I recommendation.
In the right patients, these two oral medications improve heart failure morbidity and mortality significantly beyond what’s achievable with what has been the gold standard, guideline-directed medical therapy. Dr. Abraham described how to get started using the two medications at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
Ivabradine
Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the sinoatrial pacemaker modulating I(f) current. It acts by slowing the sinus rate without reducing myocardial contractility.
“This agent does one thing and one thing alone: It lowers heart rate,” the cardiologist explained.
And that, he added, was sufficient to significantly reduce the risks of death due to heart failure and recurrent hospitalization for worsening heart failure in the pivotal SHIFT trial.
SHIFT included 6,505 patients with moderate to severe heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a resting heart rate above 70 bpm despite background guideline-directed medical therapy. Participants were randomized double blind to ivabradine titrated to a maximum of 7.5 mg twice daily or placebo and followed for a median of about 23 months. The rate of death due to heart failure was 3% with ivabradine and 5% with placebo, for a statistically significant 26% relative risk reduction favoring ivabradine.
But the drug’s main benefit was in reducing recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure, an endpoint of particular interest to health policy officials given that heart failure hospitalizations chew up a substantial proportion of the Medicare budget. Ivabradine reduced first hospitalizations for heart failure during the study period by 25%, second hospitalizations by 34%, and third hospitalizations by 29% (Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov;33[22]:2813-20).
The ACC/AHA guideline update stresses the importance of reserving ivabradine for heart failure patients whose resting heart rate exceeds 70 bpm, despite being on their maximum tolerated dose of a beta-blocker, Dr. Abraham noted.
Ivabradine is contraindicated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure, severe liver disease, or hypotension, in patients on any of the numerous agents that strongly inhibit the enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, and in those who have sick sinus syndrome, have sinoatrial block, or are pacemaker dependent.
Sacubitril/valsartan
Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, an enzyme that blocks the action of endogenous vasoactive peptides including bradykinin, substance P, and natriuretic peptides, all of which counter important maladaptive mechanisms in heart failure. Sacubitril has been combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan to form the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, formerly known as LCZ696 and now marketed as Entresto.
In the pivotal double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial, 8,442 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to the ARNI at 200 mg b.i.d. or to enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d. on top of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The trial was stopped early because of evidence of overwhelming benefit: a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death and a 21% decrease in the risk of heart failure hospitalizations in the sacubitril/valsartan group, as well as significant reductions in heart failure symptoms and physical limitations (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
The updated heart failure guidelines strongly recommend that patients with heart failure should be treated with either an ACE inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, or an ARNI. Further, patients who remain symptomatic on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be switched to an ARNI; that’s a class Ib recommendation based upon the results of PARADIGM-HF.
In getting started using the ARNI, Dr. Abraham said it’s important to understand as background the selective nature of the PARADIGM-HF study design. During the single-blind run-in period of 5-8 weeks, roughly 10% of patients dropped out because they couldn’t tolerate enalapril at 10 mg b.i.d., and a similar percentage dropped out during the ARNI run-in. Thus, patients who couldn’t tolerate a low dose of an ACE inhibitor weren’t in the study. And patients capable of tolerating guideline-recommended full-dose ACE inhibitor therapy were not specifically sought for participation.
“So there are some unanswered questions about the ARNI. If you’re just getting started with this compound in treating your heart failure patients, my own feeling is you should maybe aim for the type of patient that was included in this trial: patients who could tolerate a moderate dose of an ACE inhibitor and had generally good blood pressure. That’s a great way to begin to get experience with this agent in heart failure,” the cardiologist advised.
He reported serving as a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude Medical.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CARDIOVASCULAR CONFERENCE AT SNOWMASS