User login
Ventricular assist devices linked to sepsis
NEW ORLEANS – Back in 2008, there was only one case.
Since then, however, the number of patients with ventricular assist devices who developed sepsis while being treated in the cardiac unit at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, appeared to be noticeably growing. So, investigators launched a study to confirm their suspicions and to learn more about the underlying causes.
“Bloodstream infection is a serious infection, so I thought, ‘Let’s see what’s happening,’ ” explained Ira Das, MD, a consultant microbiologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common cause, present in 32% of the 25 cases. Sepsis was caused by Enterococcus faecium in 12%, Candida parapsilosis in 8%, and Staphylococcus aureus in 2%. Another 4% were either Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, C. guilliermondii, or C. orthopsilosis. The remaining 16% of bloodstream infections were polymicrobial.
Less certain was the source of these infections.
“In the majority of cases, we didn’t know where it was coming from,” Dr. Das said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. In 6 of the 25 cases, VAD was confirmed to be the focus of infection, either through imaging or because a failing component of the explanted device was examined later. An intravascular catheter was the source in another 5 patients, and in 14 cases, the source remained a mystery.
“Some of these infections just might have been hard to see,” Dr. Das said. “If the infection is inside the device, it’s not always easy to visualize.”
The study supports earlier findings from a review article that points to a significant infection risk associated with the implantation of VADs (Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011 Sep;8[5]:627-34). That article’s authors noted, “Despite recent improvements in outcomes, device-related infections remain a significant complication of LVAD [left ventricular assist device] therapy.”
In a previous study of people with end-stage heart failure, other investigators noted that, “despite the substantial survival benefit, the morbidity and mortality associated with the use of the left ventricular assist device were considerable. In particular, infection and mechanical failure of the device were major factors in the 2-year survival rate of only 23%” (N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 15;345[20]:1435-43).
Similarly, in the current study, mortality was higher among those with sepsis and a VAD. Mortality was 39% – including eight patients who died with a VAD in situ and one following cardiac transplantation. However, Dr. Das cautioned, “It’s a small number, and there are other factors that could have contributed. They all go on anticoagulants so they have bleeding tendencies, and many of the patients are in the ICU with multiorgan failure.”
Infection prevention remains paramount to minimize mortality and other adverse events associated with a patient’s having a VAD. “We have to make sure that infection control procedures and our treatments are up to the optimal standard,” Dr. Das said. “It’s not easy to remove the device.”
Of the 129 VADs implanted, 68 were long-term LVADs, 11 were short-term LVADs, 15 were right ventricular devices, and 35 were biventricular devices.
The study is ongoing. The data presented at the meeting were collected up until December 2016.
“Since then, I’ve seen two more cases, and – very interestingly – one was Haemophilus influenzae,” Dr. Das said. “The patient was on the device, he was at home, and he came in with bacteremia.” Again, the source of infection proved elusive. “With H. influenzae, you would think it was coming from his chest, but the chest x-ray was normal.”
The second case, a patient with a coagulase-negative staphylococci bloodstream infection, was scheduled for a PET scan at the time of Dr. Das’ presentation to try to identify the source of infection.
Dr. Das had no relevant disclosures.
Modern technology saves our patients' lives, but there is always another side to the coin. Reports that LVAD devices are associated with a high incidence of bloodstream infections is important for future clinical practice. The fact that the causes and risk factors for these infections are unknown make this phenomena one of high interest.
Modern technology saves our patients' lives, but there is always another side to the coin. Reports that LVAD devices are associated with a high incidence of bloodstream infections is important for future clinical practice. The fact that the causes and risk factors for these infections are unknown make this phenomena one of high interest.
Modern technology saves our patients' lives, but there is always another side to the coin. Reports that LVAD devices are associated with a high incidence of bloodstream infections is important for future clinical practice. The fact that the causes and risk factors for these infections are unknown make this phenomena one of high interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Back in 2008, there was only one case.
Since then, however, the number of patients with ventricular assist devices who developed sepsis while being treated in the cardiac unit at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, appeared to be noticeably growing. So, investigators launched a study to confirm their suspicions and to learn more about the underlying causes.
“Bloodstream infection is a serious infection, so I thought, ‘Let’s see what’s happening,’ ” explained Ira Das, MD, a consultant microbiologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common cause, present in 32% of the 25 cases. Sepsis was caused by Enterococcus faecium in 12%, Candida parapsilosis in 8%, and Staphylococcus aureus in 2%. Another 4% were either Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, C. guilliermondii, or C. orthopsilosis. The remaining 16% of bloodstream infections were polymicrobial.
Less certain was the source of these infections.
“In the majority of cases, we didn’t know where it was coming from,” Dr. Das said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. In 6 of the 25 cases, VAD was confirmed to be the focus of infection, either through imaging or because a failing component of the explanted device was examined later. An intravascular catheter was the source in another 5 patients, and in 14 cases, the source remained a mystery.
“Some of these infections just might have been hard to see,” Dr. Das said. “If the infection is inside the device, it’s not always easy to visualize.”
The study supports earlier findings from a review article that points to a significant infection risk associated with the implantation of VADs (Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011 Sep;8[5]:627-34). That article’s authors noted, “Despite recent improvements in outcomes, device-related infections remain a significant complication of LVAD [left ventricular assist device] therapy.”
In a previous study of people with end-stage heart failure, other investigators noted that, “despite the substantial survival benefit, the morbidity and mortality associated with the use of the left ventricular assist device were considerable. In particular, infection and mechanical failure of the device were major factors in the 2-year survival rate of only 23%” (N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 15;345[20]:1435-43).
Similarly, in the current study, mortality was higher among those with sepsis and a VAD. Mortality was 39% – including eight patients who died with a VAD in situ and one following cardiac transplantation. However, Dr. Das cautioned, “It’s a small number, and there are other factors that could have contributed. They all go on anticoagulants so they have bleeding tendencies, and many of the patients are in the ICU with multiorgan failure.”
Infection prevention remains paramount to minimize mortality and other adverse events associated with a patient’s having a VAD. “We have to make sure that infection control procedures and our treatments are up to the optimal standard,” Dr. Das said. “It’s not easy to remove the device.”
Of the 129 VADs implanted, 68 were long-term LVADs, 11 were short-term LVADs, 15 were right ventricular devices, and 35 were biventricular devices.
The study is ongoing. The data presented at the meeting were collected up until December 2016.
“Since then, I’ve seen two more cases, and – very interestingly – one was Haemophilus influenzae,” Dr. Das said. “The patient was on the device, he was at home, and he came in with bacteremia.” Again, the source of infection proved elusive. “With H. influenzae, you would think it was coming from his chest, but the chest x-ray was normal.”
The second case, a patient with a coagulase-negative staphylococci bloodstream infection, was scheduled for a PET scan at the time of Dr. Das’ presentation to try to identify the source of infection.
Dr. Das had no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Back in 2008, there was only one case.
Since then, however, the number of patients with ventricular assist devices who developed sepsis while being treated in the cardiac unit at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, appeared to be noticeably growing. So, investigators launched a study to confirm their suspicions and to learn more about the underlying causes.
“Bloodstream infection is a serious infection, so I thought, ‘Let’s see what’s happening,’ ” explained Ira Das, MD, a consultant microbiologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common cause, present in 32% of the 25 cases. Sepsis was caused by Enterococcus faecium in 12%, Candida parapsilosis in 8%, and Staphylococcus aureus in 2%. Another 4% were either Enterococcus faecalis, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, C. guilliermondii, or C. orthopsilosis. The remaining 16% of bloodstream infections were polymicrobial.
Less certain was the source of these infections.
“In the majority of cases, we didn’t know where it was coming from,” Dr. Das said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. In 6 of the 25 cases, VAD was confirmed to be the focus of infection, either through imaging or because a failing component of the explanted device was examined later. An intravascular catheter was the source in another 5 patients, and in 14 cases, the source remained a mystery.
“Some of these infections just might have been hard to see,” Dr. Das said. “If the infection is inside the device, it’s not always easy to visualize.”
The study supports earlier findings from a review article that points to a significant infection risk associated with the implantation of VADs (Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011 Sep;8[5]:627-34). That article’s authors noted, “Despite recent improvements in outcomes, device-related infections remain a significant complication of LVAD [left ventricular assist device] therapy.”
In a previous study of people with end-stage heart failure, other investigators noted that, “despite the substantial survival benefit, the morbidity and mortality associated with the use of the left ventricular assist device were considerable. In particular, infection and mechanical failure of the device were major factors in the 2-year survival rate of only 23%” (N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 15;345[20]:1435-43).
Similarly, in the current study, mortality was higher among those with sepsis and a VAD. Mortality was 39% – including eight patients who died with a VAD in situ and one following cardiac transplantation. However, Dr. Das cautioned, “It’s a small number, and there are other factors that could have contributed. They all go on anticoagulants so they have bleeding tendencies, and many of the patients are in the ICU with multiorgan failure.”
Infection prevention remains paramount to minimize mortality and other adverse events associated with a patient’s having a VAD. “We have to make sure that infection control procedures and our treatments are up to the optimal standard,” Dr. Das said. “It’s not easy to remove the device.”
Of the 129 VADs implanted, 68 were long-term LVADs, 11 were short-term LVADs, 15 were right ventricular devices, and 35 were biventricular devices.
The study is ongoing. The data presented at the meeting were collected up until December 2016.
“Since then, I’ve seen two more cases, and – very interestingly – one was Haemophilus influenzae,” Dr. Das said. “The patient was on the device, he was at home, and he came in with bacteremia.” Again, the source of infection proved elusive. “With H. influenzae, you would think it was coming from his chest, but the chest x-ray was normal.”
The second case, a patient with a coagulase-negative staphylococci bloodstream infection, was scheduled for a PET scan at the time of Dr. Das’ presentation to try to identify the source of infection.
Dr. Das had no relevant disclosures.
AT ASM MICROBE 2017
Key clinical point: There may be a significant rate of bloodstream infections among people with a ventricular assist device.
Major finding: A total of 20% of the 118 people with a VAD had a bloodstream infection.
Data source: A retrospective study of 129 ventricular assist devices placed in 118 people between 2008 and 2016.
Disclosures: Dr. Das had no relevant disclosures.
Study: No increased mortality with ACA-prompted readmission declines
Concerns that efforts to reduce 30-day hospital readmission rates under the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program might lead to unintended increases in mortality rates appear to be unfounded, according to a review of more than 6.7 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia between 2008 and 2014.
In fact, reductions in 30-day readmission rates among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge, according to Kumar Dharmarajan, MD, of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, and colleagues (JAMA 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:270-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.8444).
From 2008 to 2014, the RARRs declined in aggregate across hospitals (–0.053% for heart failure, –0.044% for acute MI, and –0.033% for pneumonia).
“In contrast, monthly aggregate trends across hospitals in 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge varied by admitting condition” the investigators said.
For heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, there was an increase of 0.008%, a decrease of 0.003%, and an increase of 0.001%, respectively, they said. However, paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge “identified concomitant reduction in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals.”
Correlation coefficients of the paired monthly trends for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia in 2008-2014 were 0.066, 0.067, and 0.108, respectively.
“Paired trends in hospital 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates and both 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge and 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after the admission date also identified concomitant reductions in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals,” the authors wrote.
The findings “do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions,” they concluded.
The authors work under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures. Dr. Dharmarajan reported serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for Clover Health at the time this research was performed. He is supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research, and the Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.
The findings by Dharmarajan and colleagues are “certainly good news,” Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, wrote in an editorial.
The study provides support for strategies that hospitals are using to reduce readmissions, and also underscores the importance of evaluating unintended consequences of policy changes such as the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), she said (JAMA. 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:243-4).
The study did not address the possibility that attention to reducing readmissions has taken priority over reducing mortality, which could have the unintended consequence of slowing improvements in mortality, she noted, suggesting that for this and other reasons it may be “time to reexamine and reengineer the HRRP to avoid unintended consequences and to ensure that its incentives are fully aligned with the ultimate goal of improving the health outcomes of patients.
“Only with full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of a particular policy decision can policy makers and advocates work to craft statutes and rules that maximize benefits while minimizing harms,” she wrote.
Dr. Joynt Maddox is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
The findings by Dharmarajan and colleagues are “certainly good news,” Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, wrote in an editorial.
The study provides support for strategies that hospitals are using to reduce readmissions, and also underscores the importance of evaluating unintended consequences of policy changes such as the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), she said (JAMA. 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:243-4).
The study did not address the possibility that attention to reducing readmissions has taken priority over reducing mortality, which could have the unintended consequence of slowing improvements in mortality, she noted, suggesting that for this and other reasons it may be “time to reexamine and reengineer the HRRP to avoid unintended consequences and to ensure that its incentives are fully aligned with the ultimate goal of improving the health outcomes of patients.
“Only with full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of a particular policy decision can policy makers and advocates work to craft statutes and rules that maximize benefits while minimizing harms,” she wrote.
Dr. Joynt Maddox is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
The findings by Dharmarajan and colleagues are “certainly good news,” Karen E. Joynt Maddox, MD, wrote in an editorial.
The study provides support for strategies that hospitals are using to reduce readmissions, and also underscores the importance of evaluating unintended consequences of policy changes such as the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), she said (JAMA. 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:243-4).
The study did not address the possibility that attention to reducing readmissions has taken priority over reducing mortality, which could have the unintended consequence of slowing improvements in mortality, she noted, suggesting that for this and other reasons it may be “time to reexamine and reengineer the HRRP to avoid unintended consequences and to ensure that its incentives are fully aligned with the ultimate goal of improving the health outcomes of patients.
“Only with full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of a particular policy decision can policy makers and advocates work to craft statutes and rules that maximize benefits while minimizing harms,” she wrote.
Dr. Joynt Maddox is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Concerns that efforts to reduce 30-day hospital readmission rates under the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program might lead to unintended increases in mortality rates appear to be unfounded, according to a review of more than 6.7 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia between 2008 and 2014.
In fact, reductions in 30-day readmission rates among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge, according to Kumar Dharmarajan, MD, of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, and colleagues (JAMA 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:270-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.8444).
From 2008 to 2014, the RARRs declined in aggregate across hospitals (–0.053% for heart failure, –0.044% for acute MI, and –0.033% for pneumonia).
“In contrast, monthly aggregate trends across hospitals in 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge varied by admitting condition” the investigators said.
For heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, there was an increase of 0.008%, a decrease of 0.003%, and an increase of 0.001%, respectively, they said. However, paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge “identified concomitant reduction in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals.”
Correlation coefficients of the paired monthly trends for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia in 2008-2014 were 0.066, 0.067, and 0.108, respectively.
“Paired trends in hospital 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates and both 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge and 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after the admission date also identified concomitant reductions in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals,” the authors wrote.
The findings “do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions,” they concluded.
The authors work under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures. Dr. Dharmarajan reported serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for Clover Health at the time this research was performed. He is supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research, and the Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.
Concerns that efforts to reduce 30-day hospital readmission rates under the Affordable Care Act’s Hospital Readmission Reduction Program might lead to unintended increases in mortality rates appear to be unfounded, according to a review of more than 6.7 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia between 2008 and 2014.
In fact, reductions in 30-day readmission rates among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge, according to Kumar Dharmarajan, MD, of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, and colleagues (JAMA 2017 Jul 18;318[3]:270-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.8444).
From 2008 to 2014, the RARRs declined in aggregate across hospitals (–0.053% for heart failure, –0.044% for acute MI, and –0.033% for pneumonia).
“In contrast, monthly aggregate trends across hospitals in 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge varied by admitting condition” the investigators said.
For heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, there was an increase of 0.008%, a decrease of 0.003%, and an increase of 0.001%, respectively, they said. However, paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge “identified concomitant reduction in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals.”
Correlation coefficients of the paired monthly trends for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia in 2008-2014 were 0.066, 0.067, and 0.108, respectively.
“Paired trends in hospital 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates and both 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after discharge and 90-day risk-adjusted mortality rates after the admission date also identified concomitant reductions in readmission and mortality rates within hospitals,” the authors wrote.
The findings “do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions,” they concluded.
The authors work under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures. Dr. Dharmarajan reported serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for Clover Health at the time this research was performed. He is supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research, and the Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Correlation coefficients of the paired monthly trends for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia in 2008-2014 were 0.066, 0.067, and 0.108, respectively.
Data source: A retrospective review of more than 6.7 million hospitalized Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.
Disclosures: The authors work under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures. Dr. Dharmarajan reported serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for Clover Health at the time this research was performed. He is supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research, and the Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.
Plasma biomarker distinguishes ARDS, acute heart failure
WASHINGTON – Plasma levels of an interleukin-33 receptor that’s involved in inflammation regulation appeared able to discriminate between acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute decompensated heart failure in an analysis with 72 patients.
In a second study, high plasma levels of the same interleukin-33 receptor, known as soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity 2 (sST2), identified acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients who were sicker and more responsive to conservative fluid management, Sean D. Levy, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
In order to assess the ability of sST2 to reliably distinguish patients with ARDS from those with acute decompensated heart failure, he and his associates selected 72 patients seen at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston with an initial diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure accompanied by bilateral lung infiltrates and acute hypoxemia respiratory failure requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. The investigators measured the sST2 level in a plasma specimen from each patient. In addition, after each patient either left the hospital or died, their case underwent review by two critical care physicians who retrospectively rediagnosed the patients as either having ARDS or acute decompensated heart failure. This divided the cohort into 30 patients with ARDS and 42 with true acute heart failure. The two subgroups matched up fairly closely for most clinical measures and comorbidities, but APACHE III (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III) scores averaged significantly higher in the ARDS patients.
The plasma levels of sST2 showed a dramatic split between the two subgroups. The 30 patients retrospectively diagnosed with ARDS had an average level of 386 ng/mL with an interquartile range of 318-611 ng/mL. The 42 acute decompensated heart failure patients averaged a sST2 level of 148 ng/mL, with an interquartile range of 84-225 ng/mL. The area under the receiver operator curve for discriminating between ARDS and acute heart failure using a cutpoint of 271 mg/mL was 0.86, showing “good” discrimination, Dr. Levy said. This cutpoint had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 88% for correctly distinguishing between ARDS and acute heart failure.
In a second analysis, Dr. Levy and his associates looked at the ability of sST2 levels to separate out patients with acute lung injury who had a more robust response to either the conservative or liberal fluid-management strategies tested in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), run by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s ARDS Clinical Trials Network. The primary outcome of FACTT was death from any cause 60 days after entry, and this showed no significant difference between conservative (restricted fluids and increased urine output) and liberal (the reverse) fluid management strategies in acute lung injury patients (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 15;354[14]:2564-75). From among the 1,001 patients enrolled in FACTT, 826 had specimens available for measuring sST2 (Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov;41[11]:2521-31),
The researchers applied the sST2 cut point they derived in the first analysis to the FACTT cohort and identified 133 (16%) patients with a low sST2 level and 693 (84%) with a high level. The patients with high sST2 were sicker, with significantly higher APACHE III scores, worse acidemia, and worse renal function.
Patients with high sST2 levels had a significant increase in ventilator-free days on conservative fluid management, compared with liberal management, while the two management strategies produced virtually identical results in the patients with low levels of sST2. Patients with high sST2 also had a significantly quicker time to extubation on a conservative strategy compared with the liberal strategy, and again this correlation did not exist among patients with low sST2. However, as in the overall trial a conservative strategy had no discernible impact on 60-day mortality, compared with the liberal strategy, even in the subgroup with high sST2.
Dr. Levy had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – Plasma levels of an interleukin-33 receptor that’s involved in inflammation regulation appeared able to discriminate between acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute decompensated heart failure in an analysis with 72 patients.
In a second study, high plasma levels of the same interleukin-33 receptor, known as soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity 2 (sST2), identified acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients who were sicker and more responsive to conservative fluid management, Sean D. Levy, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
In order to assess the ability of sST2 to reliably distinguish patients with ARDS from those with acute decompensated heart failure, he and his associates selected 72 patients seen at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston with an initial diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure accompanied by bilateral lung infiltrates and acute hypoxemia respiratory failure requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. The investigators measured the sST2 level in a plasma specimen from each patient. In addition, after each patient either left the hospital or died, their case underwent review by two critical care physicians who retrospectively rediagnosed the patients as either having ARDS or acute decompensated heart failure. This divided the cohort into 30 patients with ARDS and 42 with true acute heart failure. The two subgroups matched up fairly closely for most clinical measures and comorbidities, but APACHE III (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III) scores averaged significantly higher in the ARDS patients.
The plasma levels of sST2 showed a dramatic split between the two subgroups. The 30 patients retrospectively diagnosed with ARDS had an average level of 386 ng/mL with an interquartile range of 318-611 ng/mL. The 42 acute decompensated heart failure patients averaged a sST2 level of 148 ng/mL, with an interquartile range of 84-225 ng/mL. The area under the receiver operator curve for discriminating between ARDS and acute heart failure using a cutpoint of 271 mg/mL was 0.86, showing “good” discrimination, Dr. Levy said. This cutpoint had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 88% for correctly distinguishing between ARDS and acute heart failure.
In a second analysis, Dr. Levy and his associates looked at the ability of sST2 levels to separate out patients with acute lung injury who had a more robust response to either the conservative or liberal fluid-management strategies tested in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), run by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s ARDS Clinical Trials Network. The primary outcome of FACTT was death from any cause 60 days after entry, and this showed no significant difference between conservative (restricted fluids and increased urine output) and liberal (the reverse) fluid management strategies in acute lung injury patients (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 15;354[14]:2564-75). From among the 1,001 patients enrolled in FACTT, 826 had specimens available for measuring sST2 (Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov;41[11]:2521-31),
The researchers applied the sST2 cut point they derived in the first analysis to the FACTT cohort and identified 133 (16%) patients with a low sST2 level and 693 (84%) with a high level. The patients with high sST2 were sicker, with significantly higher APACHE III scores, worse acidemia, and worse renal function.
Patients with high sST2 levels had a significant increase in ventilator-free days on conservative fluid management, compared with liberal management, while the two management strategies produced virtually identical results in the patients with low levels of sST2. Patients with high sST2 also had a significantly quicker time to extubation on a conservative strategy compared with the liberal strategy, and again this correlation did not exist among patients with low sST2. However, as in the overall trial a conservative strategy had no discernible impact on 60-day mortality, compared with the liberal strategy, even in the subgroup with high sST2.
Dr. Levy had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – Plasma levels of an interleukin-33 receptor that’s involved in inflammation regulation appeared able to discriminate between acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute decompensated heart failure in an analysis with 72 patients.
In a second study, high plasma levels of the same interleukin-33 receptor, known as soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity 2 (sST2), identified acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients who were sicker and more responsive to conservative fluid management, Sean D. Levy, MD, said at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
In order to assess the ability of sST2 to reliably distinguish patients with ARDS from those with acute decompensated heart failure, he and his associates selected 72 patients seen at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston with an initial diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure accompanied by bilateral lung infiltrates and acute hypoxemia respiratory failure requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. The investigators measured the sST2 level in a plasma specimen from each patient. In addition, after each patient either left the hospital or died, their case underwent review by two critical care physicians who retrospectively rediagnosed the patients as either having ARDS or acute decompensated heart failure. This divided the cohort into 30 patients with ARDS and 42 with true acute heart failure. The two subgroups matched up fairly closely for most clinical measures and comorbidities, but APACHE III (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III) scores averaged significantly higher in the ARDS patients.
The plasma levels of sST2 showed a dramatic split between the two subgroups. The 30 patients retrospectively diagnosed with ARDS had an average level of 386 ng/mL with an interquartile range of 318-611 ng/mL. The 42 acute decompensated heart failure patients averaged a sST2 level of 148 ng/mL, with an interquartile range of 84-225 ng/mL. The area under the receiver operator curve for discriminating between ARDS and acute heart failure using a cutpoint of 271 mg/mL was 0.86, showing “good” discrimination, Dr. Levy said. This cutpoint had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 88% for correctly distinguishing between ARDS and acute heart failure.
In a second analysis, Dr. Levy and his associates looked at the ability of sST2 levels to separate out patients with acute lung injury who had a more robust response to either the conservative or liberal fluid-management strategies tested in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), run by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s ARDS Clinical Trials Network. The primary outcome of FACTT was death from any cause 60 days after entry, and this showed no significant difference between conservative (restricted fluids and increased urine output) and liberal (the reverse) fluid management strategies in acute lung injury patients (N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 15;354[14]:2564-75). From among the 1,001 patients enrolled in FACTT, 826 had specimens available for measuring sST2 (Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov;41[11]:2521-31),
The researchers applied the sST2 cut point they derived in the first analysis to the FACTT cohort and identified 133 (16%) patients with a low sST2 level and 693 (84%) with a high level. The patients with high sST2 were sicker, with significantly higher APACHE III scores, worse acidemia, and worse renal function.
Patients with high sST2 levels had a significant increase in ventilator-free days on conservative fluid management, compared with liberal management, while the two management strategies produced virtually identical results in the patients with low levels of sST2. Patients with high sST2 also had a significantly quicker time to extubation on a conservative strategy compared with the liberal strategy, and again this correlation did not exist among patients with low sST2. However, as in the overall trial a conservative strategy had no discernible impact on 60-day mortality, compared with the liberal strategy, even in the subgroup with high sST2.
Dr. Levy had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ATS 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: An sST2 cutpoint of 271 ng/mL discriminated between ARDS and acute heart failure with 83% sensitivity and 88% specificity.
Data source: Review of 72 patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure at one U.S. center.
Disclosures: Dr. Levy had no disclosures.
Evolute transcatheter valve, now FDA approved for intermediate-risk patients, impresses in real-world practice
PARIS – The Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve demonstrated excellent 30-day results in a real-world, mixed surgical risk population in the large Evolut R FORWARD study.
In this 1,038-patient observational study conducted at 53 sites in 20 countries, the Evolut R valve showed excellent forward hemodynamics and low 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and stroke that were unaffected by utilization of the device’s repositioning feature, Eberhard Grube, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The importance of the FORWARD study, Dr. Grube observed, is that it illustrates the clinical outcomes obtained in a large population drawn from routine clinical practice. Unlike in a randomized trial such as SURTAVI, the participating sites in the Evolut R Forward study weren’t all high-volume enrollment centers, and operators had widely varying degrees of experience with the valve.
Also, SURTAVI utilized the first generation of the self-expanding CoreValve, which lacked the repositioning feature introduced in the second-generation Evolut R. The FORWARD study is the first rigorous evaluation of Evolut R with centrally adjudicated outcomes.
The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score in participants was 5.5%, and 47% had a low-risk score of less than 4%. However, the patients had a mean age of 82 years, one-third were deemed frail, 30% had diabetes, and 26% had chronic lung disease.
The primary study endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. The rate was 1.9%, compared with a predicted 5.5% rate based on STS score, for an impressive observed-to-expected ratio of 0.35.
Hemodynamically, the effective orifice area improved from 0.8 cm2 at baseline to 1.9 cm2 at 30 days, while the mean aortic valve gradient plunged from 41.7 to 8.5 mm Hg.
At baseline only 1.5% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class I and 26.5% were class II. At 30 days, 44.7% were class I and 43.4% were class II. The prevalence of NYHA class III status decreased from 63.8% to 11.3%.
There was no or only trace paravalvular leak at discharge in 67.2% of patients as adjudicated in a core laboratory, mild leak in 30.9%, moderate in 1.9%, and severe leak in just 0.1%.
The 30-day total stroke rate was 2.8%, including a 1.8% rate of disabling stroke. Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of patients, valve embolization in 0.7%, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding in 3.3%. There were no cases of coronary obstruction or annular rupture.
New pacemaker implantation was required within 30 days in 17.5% of patients. Three-quarters of the pacemakers were placed because of third-degree atrioventricular block.
The new valve ended up in proper anatomic position in 98.9% of patients.
The repositioning feature was utilized in 26% of participants. It had no impact on the rate of pacemaker implantation, mortality, stroke, or other safety endpoints.
“I think the ability to reposition this valve, which is a safety feature, is an important feature, particularly for centers that don’t have so much experience. If the valve is considered to be too high or too low, or you see, for example, a higher degree of paravalvular leak, you have the chance to correct that by using this feature. So it’s an important feature for the operator. It helps to get an optimal result. And the most important thing is there was no price in terms of safety that we paid for repositioning,” said Dr. Grube, professor of cardiology and head of the Center for Innovative Intervention in Cardiology at the University of Bonn in Siegberg, Germany.
Session cochair Alain Cribier, MD, famed for having performed the world’s first TAVR procedure, pronounced the FORWARD results “very impressive.”
“Less than 2% mortality, around a 2% disabling stroke rate, and the data on paravalvular leak are excellent as well. It’s very nice to see that what was a limited data set earlier, with a smaller number of patients, has now been replicated in 1,000 patients. So I think now we can confidently talk about the clinical outcomes – and they are excellent,” declared Dr. Cribier, professor of medicine at the University of Rouen (France) and chief of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital.
The FORWARD study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Grube reported serving as a consultant to that company as well as to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Millipede Medical.
PARIS – The Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve demonstrated excellent 30-day results in a real-world, mixed surgical risk population in the large Evolut R FORWARD study.
In this 1,038-patient observational study conducted at 53 sites in 20 countries, the Evolut R valve showed excellent forward hemodynamics and low 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and stroke that were unaffected by utilization of the device’s repositioning feature, Eberhard Grube, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The importance of the FORWARD study, Dr. Grube observed, is that it illustrates the clinical outcomes obtained in a large population drawn from routine clinical practice. Unlike in a randomized trial such as SURTAVI, the participating sites in the Evolut R Forward study weren’t all high-volume enrollment centers, and operators had widely varying degrees of experience with the valve.
Also, SURTAVI utilized the first generation of the self-expanding CoreValve, which lacked the repositioning feature introduced in the second-generation Evolut R. The FORWARD study is the first rigorous evaluation of Evolut R with centrally adjudicated outcomes.
The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score in participants was 5.5%, and 47% had a low-risk score of less than 4%. However, the patients had a mean age of 82 years, one-third were deemed frail, 30% had diabetes, and 26% had chronic lung disease.
The primary study endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. The rate was 1.9%, compared with a predicted 5.5% rate based on STS score, for an impressive observed-to-expected ratio of 0.35.
Hemodynamically, the effective orifice area improved from 0.8 cm2 at baseline to 1.9 cm2 at 30 days, while the mean aortic valve gradient plunged from 41.7 to 8.5 mm Hg.
At baseline only 1.5% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class I and 26.5% were class II. At 30 days, 44.7% were class I and 43.4% were class II. The prevalence of NYHA class III status decreased from 63.8% to 11.3%.
There was no or only trace paravalvular leak at discharge in 67.2% of patients as adjudicated in a core laboratory, mild leak in 30.9%, moderate in 1.9%, and severe leak in just 0.1%.
The 30-day total stroke rate was 2.8%, including a 1.8% rate of disabling stroke. Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of patients, valve embolization in 0.7%, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding in 3.3%. There were no cases of coronary obstruction or annular rupture.
New pacemaker implantation was required within 30 days in 17.5% of patients. Three-quarters of the pacemakers were placed because of third-degree atrioventricular block.
The new valve ended up in proper anatomic position in 98.9% of patients.
The repositioning feature was utilized in 26% of participants. It had no impact on the rate of pacemaker implantation, mortality, stroke, or other safety endpoints.
“I think the ability to reposition this valve, which is a safety feature, is an important feature, particularly for centers that don’t have so much experience. If the valve is considered to be too high or too low, or you see, for example, a higher degree of paravalvular leak, you have the chance to correct that by using this feature. So it’s an important feature for the operator. It helps to get an optimal result. And the most important thing is there was no price in terms of safety that we paid for repositioning,” said Dr. Grube, professor of cardiology and head of the Center for Innovative Intervention in Cardiology at the University of Bonn in Siegberg, Germany.
Session cochair Alain Cribier, MD, famed for having performed the world’s first TAVR procedure, pronounced the FORWARD results “very impressive.”
“Less than 2% mortality, around a 2% disabling stroke rate, and the data on paravalvular leak are excellent as well. It’s very nice to see that what was a limited data set earlier, with a smaller number of patients, has now been replicated in 1,000 patients. So I think now we can confidently talk about the clinical outcomes – and they are excellent,” declared Dr. Cribier, professor of medicine at the University of Rouen (France) and chief of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital.
The FORWARD study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Grube reported serving as a consultant to that company as well as to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Millipede Medical.
PARIS – The Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve demonstrated excellent 30-day results in a real-world, mixed surgical risk population in the large Evolut R FORWARD study.
In this 1,038-patient observational study conducted at 53 sites in 20 countries, the Evolut R valve showed excellent forward hemodynamics and low 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and stroke that were unaffected by utilization of the device’s repositioning feature, Eberhard Grube, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
The importance of the FORWARD study, Dr. Grube observed, is that it illustrates the clinical outcomes obtained in a large population drawn from routine clinical practice. Unlike in a randomized trial such as SURTAVI, the participating sites in the Evolut R Forward study weren’t all high-volume enrollment centers, and operators had widely varying degrees of experience with the valve.
Also, SURTAVI utilized the first generation of the self-expanding CoreValve, which lacked the repositioning feature introduced in the second-generation Evolut R. The FORWARD study is the first rigorous evaluation of Evolut R with centrally adjudicated outcomes.
The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score in participants was 5.5%, and 47% had a low-risk score of less than 4%. However, the patients had a mean age of 82 years, one-third were deemed frail, 30% had diabetes, and 26% had chronic lung disease.
The primary study endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. The rate was 1.9%, compared with a predicted 5.5% rate based on STS score, for an impressive observed-to-expected ratio of 0.35.
Hemodynamically, the effective orifice area improved from 0.8 cm2 at baseline to 1.9 cm2 at 30 days, while the mean aortic valve gradient plunged from 41.7 to 8.5 mm Hg.
At baseline only 1.5% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class I and 26.5% were class II. At 30 days, 44.7% were class I and 43.4% were class II. The prevalence of NYHA class III status decreased from 63.8% to 11.3%.
There was no or only trace paravalvular leak at discharge in 67.2% of patients as adjudicated in a core laboratory, mild leak in 30.9%, moderate in 1.9%, and severe leak in just 0.1%.
The 30-day total stroke rate was 2.8%, including a 1.8% rate of disabling stroke. Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of patients, valve embolization in 0.7%, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding in 3.3%. There were no cases of coronary obstruction or annular rupture.
New pacemaker implantation was required within 30 days in 17.5% of patients. Three-quarters of the pacemakers were placed because of third-degree atrioventricular block.
The new valve ended up in proper anatomic position in 98.9% of patients.
The repositioning feature was utilized in 26% of participants. It had no impact on the rate of pacemaker implantation, mortality, stroke, or other safety endpoints.
“I think the ability to reposition this valve, which is a safety feature, is an important feature, particularly for centers that don’t have so much experience. If the valve is considered to be too high or too low, or you see, for example, a higher degree of paravalvular leak, you have the chance to correct that by using this feature. So it’s an important feature for the operator. It helps to get an optimal result. And the most important thing is there was no price in terms of safety that we paid for repositioning,” said Dr. Grube, professor of cardiology and head of the Center for Innovative Intervention in Cardiology at the University of Bonn in Siegberg, Germany.
Session cochair Alain Cribier, MD, famed for having performed the world’s first TAVR procedure, pronounced the FORWARD results “very impressive.”
“Less than 2% mortality, around a 2% disabling stroke rate, and the data on paravalvular leak are excellent as well. It’s very nice to see that what was a limited data set earlier, with a smaller number of patients, has now been replicated in 1,000 patients. So I think now we can confidently talk about the clinical outcomes – and they are excellent,” declared Dr. Cribier, professor of medicine at the University of Rouen (France) and chief of cardiology at Charles Nicolle Hospital.
The FORWARD study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Grube reported serving as a consultant to that company as well as to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Millipede Medical.
AT EUROPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 1.9% with a 2.8% stroke rate in a large, real-world study of TAVR with the repositionable self-expanding Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve.
Data source: The Evolut R FORWARD study of 1,038 recipients of the Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve at 53 sites in 20 countries.
Disclosures: The FORWARD study was sponsored by Medtronic. The presenter reported serving as a consultant to that company as well as to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Millipede Medical.
How to pump up the donor heart pool
COLORADO SPRINGS – Diminished left ventricular systolic function alone should not be used as a basis for declining a donor heart for transplantation, Agustin Sibona, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.
“Expansion of the donor pool to include more of these organs is appropriate,” said Dr. Sibona of Loma Linda (Calif.) University.
He presented an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database that encompassed all adult isolated first-time heart transplants in the United States from 2000 through March 2016.
“Carefully selected potential donor hearts with LVEF of 30% or higher should not be excluded from consideration of transplantation on the basis of depressed LVEF alone,” he concluded. “We’re not saying we should use every heart that has an EF of 35% or 45%. We say you should thoroughly evaluate those patients and those hearts and consider them.”
Roughly 500,000 people develop new end-stage heart failure each year. Heart transplantation has long been considered the definitive therapy for this condition. However, heart transplantation rates have remained static at 2,000-2,500 per year in the United States for the past 15 years because of the shortage of donor organs.
Previous work by Dr. Sibona’s senior coinvestigators has documented that 19% of potential donor hearts are not utilized for transplant solely based upon the presence of left ventricular dysfunction. That’s about 1,300 hearts per year.
“About 60% of those hearts had an LVEF greater than 40%. That’s 785 hearts. If only half of those are used, that still represents an increase in the domestic transplant rate of almost 20%,” he observed.
Twenty-one patients in the study received a heart with an LVEF of 20%-29.9%. They had an unacceptably high perioperative mortality.
There was no significant difference between the LVEF groups in terms of race, cause of death, or ischemic time.
Mean transplantation hospital length of stay varied inversely with donor heart LVEF, from 20.3 days in patients with a normal LVEF, to 23.9 days with an LVEF of 40%-49.9%, and 31.1 days with an LVEF of 30%-39.9%.
Dr. Sibona replied that unfortunately the UNOS database is not informative on that score.
Dr. Kwon offered a practical reservation about embracing the use of compromised donor hearts: “Ninety-one percent of programs in the U.S. do less than 30 heart transplants per year, and 76% do less than 20. Smaller programs won’t necessarily have the luxury of 6,000 days to see if their survival statistics bear out. If they have two or three deaths per year, that’s enough to get a notice from UNOS and CMS and private payers. So I would note some caution in that regard.”
He also posed a question: In this new era of highly effective left ventricular assist devices serving as a long-term bridge to transplant, does it make sense to turn to dysfunctional donor hearts?
“Ventricular assist devices are an evolving technology,” Dr. Sibona responded. “Short-term outcomes are equivalent to transplant, but the devices often have complications: GI bleed, stroke, thrombosis, and infections. So we still believe that heart transplantation is the gold standard for treatment. Remember, these patients have end-stage heart failure. Many can’t get out of bed without shortness of breath. So, yes, I would take those hearts.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was supported by Loma Linda and Stanford universities.
COLORADO SPRINGS – Diminished left ventricular systolic function alone should not be used as a basis for declining a donor heart for transplantation, Agustin Sibona, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.
“Expansion of the donor pool to include more of these organs is appropriate,” said Dr. Sibona of Loma Linda (Calif.) University.
He presented an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database that encompassed all adult isolated first-time heart transplants in the United States from 2000 through March 2016.
“Carefully selected potential donor hearts with LVEF of 30% or higher should not be excluded from consideration of transplantation on the basis of depressed LVEF alone,” he concluded. “We’re not saying we should use every heart that has an EF of 35% or 45%. We say you should thoroughly evaluate those patients and those hearts and consider them.”
Roughly 500,000 people develop new end-stage heart failure each year. Heart transplantation has long been considered the definitive therapy for this condition. However, heart transplantation rates have remained static at 2,000-2,500 per year in the United States for the past 15 years because of the shortage of donor organs.
Previous work by Dr. Sibona’s senior coinvestigators has documented that 19% of potential donor hearts are not utilized for transplant solely based upon the presence of left ventricular dysfunction. That’s about 1,300 hearts per year.
“About 60% of those hearts had an LVEF greater than 40%. That’s 785 hearts. If only half of those are used, that still represents an increase in the domestic transplant rate of almost 20%,” he observed.
Twenty-one patients in the study received a heart with an LVEF of 20%-29.9%. They had an unacceptably high perioperative mortality.
There was no significant difference between the LVEF groups in terms of race, cause of death, or ischemic time.
Mean transplantation hospital length of stay varied inversely with donor heart LVEF, from 20.3 days in patients with a normal LVEF, to 23.9 days with an LVEF of 40%-49.9%, and 31.1 days with an LVEF of 30%-39.9%.
Dr. Sibona replied that unfortunately the UNOS database is not informative on that score.
Dr. Kwon offered a practical reservation about embracing the use of compromised donor hearts: “Ninety-one percent of programs in the U.S. do less than 30 heart transplants per year, and 76% do less than 20. Smaller programs won’t necessarily have the luxury of 6,000 days to see if their survival statistics bear out. If they have two or three deaths per year, that’s enough to get a notice from UNOS and CMS and private payers. So I would note some caution in that regard.”
He also posed a question: In this new era of highly effective left ventricular assist devices serving as a long-term bridge to transplant, does it make sense to turn to dysfunctional donor hearts?
“Ventricular assist devices are an evolving technology,” Dr. Sibona responded. “Short-term outcomes are equivalent to transplant, but the devices often have complications: GI bleed, stroke, thrombosis, and infections. So we still believe that heart transplantation is the gold standard for treatment. Remember, these patients have end-stage heart failure. Many can’t get out of bed without shortness of breath. So, yes, I would take those hearts.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was supported by Loma Linda and Stanford universities.
COLORADO SPRINGS – Diminished left ventricular systolic function alone should not be used as a basis for declining a donor heart for transplantation, Agustin Sibona, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.
“Expansion of the donor pool to include more of these organs is appropriate,” said Dr. Sibona of Loma Linda (Calif.) University.
He presented an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database that encompassed all adult isolated first-time heart transplants in the United States from 2000 through March 2016.
“Carefully selected potential donor hearts with LVEF of 30% or higher should not be excluded from consideration of transplantation on the basis of depressed LVEF alone,” he concluded. “We’re not saying we should use every heart that has an EF of 35% or 45%. We say you should thoroughly evaluate those patients and those hearts and consider them.”
Roughly 500,000 people develop new end-stage heart failure each year. Heart transplantation has long been considered the definitive therapy for this condition. However, heart transplantation rates have remained static at 2,000-2,500 per year in the United States for the past 15 years because of the shortage of donor organs.
Previous work by Dr. Sibona’s senior coinvestigators has documented that 19% of potential donor hearts are not utilized for transplant solely based upon the presence of left ventricular dysfunction. That’s about 1,300 hearts per year.
“About 60% of those hearts had an LVEF greater than 40%. That’s 785 hearts. If only half of those are used, that still represents an increase in the domestic transplant rate of almost 20%,” he observed.
Twenty-one patients in the study received a heart with an LVEF of 20%-29.9%. They had an unacceptably high perioperative mortality.
There was no significant difference between the LVEF groups in terms of race, cause of death, or ischemic time.
Mean transplantation hospital length of stay varied inversely with donor heart LVEF, from 20.3 days in patients with a normal LVEF, to 23.9 days with an LVEF of 40%-49.9%, and 31.1 days with an LVEF of 30%-39.9%.
Dr. Sibona replied that unfortunately the UNOS database is not informative on that score.
Dr. Kwon offered a practical reservation about embracing the use of compromised donor hearts: “Ninety-one percent of programs in the U.S. do less than 30 heart transplants per year, and 76% do less than 20. Smaller programs won’t necessarily have the luxury of 6,000 days to see if their survival statistics bear out. If they have two or three deaths per year, that’s enough to get a notice from UNOS and CMS and private payers. So I would note some caution in that regard.”
He also posed a question: In this new era of highly effective left ventricular assist devices serving as a long-term bridge to transplant, does it make sense to turn to dysfunctional donor hearts?
“Ventricular assist devices are an evolving technology,” Dr. Sibona responded. “Short-term outcomes are equivalent to transplant, but the devices often have complications: GI bleed, stroke, thrombosis, and infections. So we still believe that heart transplantation is the gold standard for treatment. Remember, these patients have end-stage heart failure. Many can’t get out of bed without shortness of breath. So, yes, I would take those hearts.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was supported by Loma Linda and Stanford universities.
AT THE WTSA ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Survival of heart transplant recipients whose donor organ had left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an LVEF as low as 30%-39% was not significantly less than for those with a normal donor heart.
Data source: A retrospective study of all of the nearly 31,000 isolated first-time adult heart transplants performed in the U.S. during 2000-March 2016.
Disclosures: Loma Linda and Stanford universities supported the study. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
VIDEO: Cardiovascular events in rheumatoid arthritis have decreased over decades
MADRID – Recent improvements in the management of rheumatoid arthritis may have had a positive impact on common cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Risk ratios (RR) for several CV events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were found to be lower for data published after 2000 and up to March 2016 when compared with data published up until 2000. Indeed, comparing these two time periods, French researchers found that the RR for myocardial infarction (MI) were a respective 1.32 and 1.18, for heart failure a respective 1.25 and 1.17, and for CV mortality a respective 1.21 and 1.07.
“Systemic inflammation is the cornerstone of both rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis,” Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier University, Nîmes, France, and chief of the rheumatology service at Nîmes University Hospital, said during a press briefing at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Over the past 15 years, new treatment strategies such as ‘tight control,’ ‘treat-to-target,’ methotrexate optimization, and use of biologic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] have led to better control of this inflammation,” Dr. Gaujoux-Viala added.
The aim of the meta-analysis was to look at the overall risk for CV events in RA patients versus the general population, she said, as well as to see if there had been any temporal shift by analyzing data obtained within two time periods – before 2000 and after 2000.
A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to search for observational studies that provided data about the occurrence of CV events in RA patients and controls. Of 5,714 papers that included reports of stroke, MI, heart failure, or CV death, 28 had the necessary data that could be used for the meta-analysis. Overall, the 28 studies included 227,871 RA patients, with a mean age of 55 years.
Results showed that RA patients had a 17% increased risk for stroke versus controls overall (P = .002), with a RR of 1.17. The RRs were 1.12 before 2000 and 1.23 after 2000, making stroke the only CV event that did not appear to show a downward trend.
Compared with the general population, RA patients had a 24% excess risk of MI, a 22% excess risk of heart failure, and a 18% excess risk of dying from a CV event (all P less than .00001).
These data provide “confirmation of an increased CV risk in RA patients compared to the general population,” said Dr. Gaujoux-Viala, who also discussed the study and its implications in a video interview.
Commenting on the study, Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, wondered where the studies used in the meta-analysis had been performed because of the potential impact that reduced access to CV medications or prevention strategies in certain countries could have on the results. However, the investigators did not determine where each of the studies used in the review took place.
Dr. Gaujoux-Viala had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
MADRID – Recent improvements in the management of rheumatoid arthritis may have had a positive impact on common cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Risk ratios (RR) for several CV events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were found to be lower for data published after 2000 and up to March 2016 when compared with data published up until 2000. Indeed, comparing these two time periods, French researchers found that the RR for myocardial infarction (MI) were a respective 1.32 and 1.18, for heart failure a respective 1.25 and 1.17, and for CV mortality a respective 1.21 and 1.07.
“Systemic inflammation is the cornerstone of both rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis,” Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier University, Nîmes, France, and chief of the rheumatology service at Nîmes University Hospital, said during a press briefing at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Over the past 15 years, new treatment strategies such as ‘tight control,’ ‘treat-to-target,’ methotrexate optimization, and use of biologic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] have led to better control of this inflammation,” Dr. Gaujoux-Viala added.
The aim of the meta-analysis was to look at the overall risk for CV events in RA patients versus the general population, she said, as well as to see if there had been any temporal shift by analyzing data obtained within two time periods – before 2000 and after 2000.
A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to search for observational studies that provided data about the occurrence of CV events in RA patients and controls. Of 5,714 papers that included reports of stroke, MI, heart failure, or CV death, 28 had the necessary data that could be used for the meta-analysis. Overall, the 28 studies included 227,871 RA patients, with a mean age of 55 years.
Results showed that RA patients had a 17% increased risk for stroke versus controls overall (P = .002), with a RR of 1.17. The RRs were 1.12 before 2000 and 1.23 after 2000, making stroke the only CV event that did not appear to show a downward trend.
Compared with the general population, RA patients had a 24% excess risk of MI, a 22% excess risk of heart failure, and a 18% excess risk of dying from a CV event (all P less than .00001).
These data provide “confirmation of an increased CV risk in RA patients compared to the general population,” said Dr. Gaujoux-Viala, who also discussed the study and its implications in a video interview.
Commenting on the study, Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, wondered where the studies used in the meta-analysis had been performed because of the potential impact that reduced access to CV medications or prevention strategies in certain countries could have on the results. However, the investigators did not determine where each of the studies used in the review took place.
Dr. Gaujoux-Viala had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
MADRID – Recent improvements in the management of rheumatoid arthritis may have had a positive impact on common cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Risk ratios (RR) for several CV events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were found to be lower for data published after 2000 and up to March 2016 when compared with data published up until 2000. Indeed, comparing these two time periods, French researchers found that the RR for myocardial infarction (MI) were a respective 1.32 and 1.18, for heart failure a respective 1.25 and 1.17, and for CV mortality a respective 1.21 and 1.07.
“Systemic inflammation is the cornerstone of both rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis,” Cécile Gaujoux-Viala, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier University, Nîmes, France, and chief of the rheumatology service at Nîmes University Hospital, said during a press briefing at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Over the past 15 years, new treatment strategies such as ‘tight control,’ ‘treat-to-target,’ methotrexate optimization, and use of biologic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] have led to better control of this inflammation,” Dr. Gaujoux-Viala added.
The aim of the meta-analysis was to look at the overall risk for CV events in RA patients versus the general population, she said, as well as to see if there had been any temporal shift by analyzing data obtained within two time periods – before 2000 and after 2000.
A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to search for observational studies that provided data about the occurrence of CV events in RA patients and controls. Of 5,714 papers that included reports of stroke, MI, heart failure, or CV death, 28 had the necessary data that could be used for the meta-analysis. Overall, the 28 studies included 227,871 RA patients, with a mean age of 55 years.
Results showed that RA patients had a 17% increased risk for stroke versus controls overall (P = .002), with a RR of 1.17. The RRs were 1.12 before 2000 and 1.23 after 2000, making stroke the only CV event that did not appear to show a downward trend.
Compared with the general population, RA patients had a 24% excess risk of MI, a 22% excess risk of heart failure, and a 18% excess risk of dying from a CV event (all P less than .00001).
These data provide “confirmation of an increased CV risk in RA patients compared to the general population,” said Dr. Gaujoux-Viala, who also discussed the study and its implications in a video interview.
Commenting on the study, Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, wondered where the studies used in the meta-analysis had been performed because of the potential impact that reduced access to CV medications or prevention strategies in certain countries could have on the results. However, the investigators did not determine where each of the studies used in the review took place.
Dr. Gaujoux-Viala had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT THE EULAR 2017 CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Risk ratios for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and CV mortality were lower between the period of 2000-2016 than for the period up to 2000.
Data source: Meta-analysis of 28 studies published up to March 2016 that provided data on CV event rates in RA patients and the general population.
Disclosures: Dr. Gaujoux-Viala had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Do sleep interventions prevent atrial fibrillation?
WASHINGTON – If patients have sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea, will its treatment have cardiovascular disease benefits, especially in terms of the incidence or severity of atrial fibrillation?
Observational evidence suggests that apnea interventions may help these patients, but no clear case yet exists to prove that a breathing intervention works, experts say, and, as a result, U.S. practice is mixed when it comes to using treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), specifically continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation.
“Only a very small number of patients with atrial fibrillation undergo a sleep study,” he said in an interview. “Before I’d send my mother for atrial fibrillation ablation, I would first look for sleep disordered breathing [SDB],” but this generally isn’t happening routinely. Patients with other types of cardiovascular disease who could potentially benefit from sleep disordered breathing diagnosis and treatment are those with hypertension, especially patients who don’t fully respond to three or more antihypertensive drugs and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, he added.
Dr. Oldenburg also echoed Dr. Mehra in saying that the evidence supporting this approach for managing atrial fibrillation is less than conclusive.
“We need more precise phenotyping of patients” to better focus on patients with cardiovascular disease and sleep disordered breathing who clearly benefit from CPAP intervention, he said.
Results from the Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial, reported in September 2016, especially tarnished the notion that treating sleep disordered breathing in patients with various cardiovascular diseases can help avoid future cardiovascular events. The multicenter trial enrolled 2,717 adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease to receive either CPAP plus optimal routine care or optimal routine care only. After an average follow-up of close to 4 years, the patients treated with CPAP showed no benefit in terms of reduced cardiovascular events (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[10]:919-31).
An editorial that ran with this report suggested that the neutral outcome may have occurred because the average nightly duration of CPAP that patients in the trial self administered was just over 3 hours, arguably an inadequate dose. Other possible reasons for the lack of benefit include the time during their sleep cycle when patients administered CPAP (at the start of sleep rather than later) and that CPAP may have a reduced ability to avert new cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[8]:994-6).
Regardless of the reasons, the SAVE results, coupled with the neutral results and suggestion of harm from using adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and central sleep apnea in the SERVE-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105), have thrust the management of SDB in patients with cardiovascular disease back to the point where SDB interventions have no well-proven indications for cardiovascular disease patients.
“With the SERVE-HF and SAVE trials not showing benefit, we now have equipoise” for using or not using SDB interventions in these patients, Dr. Mehra said. “It’s not clear that treating OSA improves outcomes. That allows us to randomize patients to a control placebo arm” in future trials.
An important issue in the failure to clearly establish a role for treating OSA in patients with atrial fibrillation or other cardiovascular diseases may have been over reliance on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) as the arbiter of OSA severity, Dr. Oldenburg said. “Maybe there are parameters to look at aside from AHI, perhaps hypoxemia burden or desaturation time. AHI is not the whole truth; we need to look at other parameters. AHI may not be the correct metric to look at in patients with various cardiovascular diseases.”
Her analysis also showed that patients with at least 10 minutes of sleep time with an oxygen saturation rate of 90% or less had a 64% increased rate of later atrial fibrillation hospitalizations, compared with those with fewer than 10 minutes spent in this state. Nearly a quarter of the patients studied fell into this category.
“Nocturnal oxygen desaturation may be stronger than AHI for predicting atrial fibrillation development,” Dr. Kendzerska concluded. “The severity of OSA-related intermittent hypoxia may be more important than sleep fragmentation in the development of atrial fibrillation. These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and new onset atrial fibrillation.”
However, using oxygen desaturation instead of AHI to gauge the severity of OSA won’t solve all the challenges that sleep researchers currently face in trying to determine the efficacy of breathing interventions to prevent or treat cardiovascular disease. In the neutral SAVE trial, researchers used nocturnal oxygen saturation levels to select patients with clinically meaningful OSA.
Dr. Mehra and Dr. Kendzerska had no disclosures. Dr. Oldenburg has received consultant fees, honoraria, and/or research support from ResMed, Respicardia, and Weinmann.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This article was updated on 7/10/17.
WASHINGTON – If patients have sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea, will its treatment have cardiovascular disease benefits, especially in terms of the incidence or severity of atrial fibrillation?
Observational evidence suggests that apnea interventions may help these patients, but no clear case yet exists to prove that a breathing intervention works, experts say, and, as a result, U.S. practice is mixed when it comes to using treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), specifically continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation.
“Only a very small number of patients with atrial fibrillation undergo a sleep study,” he said in an interview. “Before I’d send my mother for atrial fibrillation ablation, I would first look for sleep disordered breathing [SDB],” but this generally isn’t happening routinely. Patients with other types of cardiovascular disease who could potentially benefit from sleep disordered breathing diagnosis and treatment are those with hypertension, especially patients who don’t fully respond to three or more antihypertensive drugs and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, he added.
Dr. Oldenburg also echoed Dr. Mehra in saying that the evidence supporting this approach for managing atrial fibrillation is less than conclusive.
“We need more precise phenotyping of patients” to better focus on patients with cardiovascular disease and sleep disordered breathing who clearly benefit from CPAP intervention, he said.
Results from the Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial, reported in September 2016, especially tarnished the notion that treating sleep disordered breathing in patients with various cardiovascular diseases can help avoid future cardiovascular events. The multicenter trial enrolled 2,717 adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease to receive either CPAP plus optimal routine care or optimal routine care only. After an average follow-up of close to 4 years, the patients treated with CPAP showed no benefit in terms of reduced cardiovascular events (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[10]:919-31).
An editorial that ran with this report suggested that the neutral outcome may have occurred because the average nightly duration of CPAP that patients in the trial self administered was just over 3 hours, arguably an inadequate dose. Other possible reasons for the lack of benefit include the time during their sleep cycle when patients administered CPAP (at the start of sleep rather than later) and that CPAP may have a reduced ability to avert new cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[8]:994-6).
Regardless of the reasons, the SAVE results, coupled with the neutral results and suggestion of harm from using adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and central sleep apnea in the SERVE-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105), have thrust the management of SDB in patients with cardiovascular disease back to the point where SDB interventions have no well-proven indications for cardiovascular disease patients.
“With the SERVE-HF and SAVE trials not showing benefit, we now have equipoise” for using or not using SDB interventions in these patients, Dr. Mehra said. “It’s not clear that treating OSA improves outcomes. That allows us to randomize patients to a control placebo arm” in future trials.
An important issue in the failure to clearly establish a role for treating OSA in patients with atrial fibrillation or other cardiovascular diseases may have been over reliance on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) as the arbiter of OSA severity, Dr. Oldenburg said. “Maybe there are parameters to look at aside from AHI, perhaps hypoxemia burden or desaturation time. AHI is not the whole truth; we need to look at other parameters. AHI may not be the correct metric to look at in patients with various cardiovascular diseases.”
Her analysis also showed that patients with at least 10 minutes of sleep time with an oxygen saturation rate of 90% or less had a 64% increased rate of later atrial fibrillation hospitalizations, compared with those with fewer than 10 minutes spent in this state. Nearly a quarter of the patients studied fell into this category.
“Nocturnal oxygen desaturation may be stronger than AHI for predicting atrial fibrillation development,” Dr. Kendzerska concluded. “The severity of OSA-related intermittent hypoxia may be more important than sleep fragmentation in the development of atrial fibrillation. These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and new onset atrial fibrillation.”
However, using oxygen desaturation instead of AHI to gauge the severity of OSA won’t solve all the challenges that sleep researchers currently face in trying to determine the efficacy of breathing interventions to prevent or treat cardiovascular disease. In the neutral SAVE trial, researchers used nocturnal oxygen saturation levels to select patients with clinically meaningful OSA.
Dr. Mehra and Dr. Kendzerska had no disclosures. Dr. Oldenburg has received consultant fees, honoraria, and/or research support from ResMed, Respicardia, and Weinmann.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This article was updated on 7/10/17.
WASHINGTON – If patients have sleep disordered breathing with obstructive sleep apnea, will its treatment have cardiovascular disease benefits, especially in terms of the incidence or severity of atrial fibrillation?
Observational evidence suggests that apnea interventions may help these patients, but no clear case yet exists to prove that a breathing intervention works, experts say, and, as a result, U.S. practice is mixed when it comes to using treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), specifically continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation.
“Only a very small number of patients with atrial fibrillation undergo a sleep study,” he said in an interview. “Before I’d send my mother for atrial fibrillation ablation, I would first look for sleep disordered breathing [SDB],” but this generally isn’t happening routinely. Patients with other types of cardiovascular disease who could potentially benefit from sleep disordered breathing diagnosis and treatment are those with hypertension, especially patients who don’t fully respond to three or more antihypertensive drugs and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, he added.
Dr. Oldenburg also echoed Dr. Mehra in saying that the evidence supporting this approach for managing atrial fibrillation is less than conclusive.
“We need more precise phenotyping of patients” to better focus on patients with cardiovascular disease and sleep disordered breathing who clearly benefit from CPAP intervention, he said.
Results from the Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial, reported in September 2016, especially tarnished the notion that treating sleep disordered breathing in patients with various cardiovascular diseases can help avoid future cardiovascular events. The multicenter trial enrolled 2,717 adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease to receive either CPAP plus optimal routine care or optimal routine care only. After an average follow-up of close to 4 years, the patients treated with CPAP showed no benefit in terms of reduced cardiovascular events (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[10]:919-31).
An editorial that ran with this report suggested that the neutral outcome may have occurred because the average nightly duration of CPAP that patients in the trial self administered was just over 3 hours, arguably an inadequate dose. Other possible reasons for the lack of benefit include the time during their sleep cycle when patients administered CPAP (at the start of sleep rather than later) and that CPAP may have a reduced ability to avert new cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sept 8;375[8]:994-6).
Regardless of the reasons, the SAVE results, coupled with the neutral results and suggestion of harm from using adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and central sleep apnea in the SERVE-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105), have thrust the management of SDB in patients with cardiovascular disease back to the point where SDB interventions have no well-proven indications for cardiovascular disease patients.
“With the SERVE-HF and SAVE trials not showing benefit, we now have equipoise” for using or not using SDB interventions in these patients, Dr. Mehra said. “It’s not clear that treating OSA improves outcomes. That allows us to randomize patients to a control placebo arm” in future trials.
An important issue in the failure to clearly establish a role for treating OSA in patients with atrial fibrillation or other cardiovascular diseases may have been over reliance on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) as the arbiter of OSA severity, Dr. Oldenburg said. “Maybe there are parameters to look at aside from AHI, perhaps hypoxemia burden or desaturation time. AHI is not the whole truth; we need to look at other parameters. AHI may not be the correct metric to look at in patients with various cardiovascular diseases.”
Her analysis also showed that patients with at least 10 minutes of sleep time with an oxygen saturation rate of 90% or less had a 64% increased rate of later atrial fibrillation hospitalizations, compared with those with fewer than 10 minutes spent in this state. Nearly a quarter of the patients studied fell into this category.
“Nocturnal oxygen desaturation may be stronger than AHI for predicting atrial fibrillation development,” Dr. Kendzerska concluded. “The severity of OSA-related intermittent hypoxia may be more important than sleep fragmentation in the development of atrial fibrillation. These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and new onset atrial fibrillation.”
However, using oxygen desaturation instead of AHI to gauge the severity of OSA won’t solve all the challenges that sleep researchers currently face in trying to determine the efficacy of breathing interventions to prevent or treat cardiovascular disease. In the neutral SAVE trial, researchers used nocturnal oxygen saturation levels to select patients with clinically meaningful OSA.
Dr. Mehra and Dr. Kendzerska had no disclosures. Dr. Oldenburg has received consultant fees, honoraria, and/or research support from ResMed, Respicardia, and Weinmann.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This article was updated on 7/10/17.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ATS 2017
Childhood asthma linked to high LV mass later
A history of childhood asthma correlates with high left ventricular mass, a prominent indicator of cardiac damage, in asymptomatic healthy young adults, according to a report published online June 26 in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Our data suggest that aggressive lifestyle modifications or even pharmacologic treatment may be applied to people with a [childhood] history of asthma. … to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dianjianyi Sun, MD, PhD, of the department of epidemiology, Tulane University, New Orleans, and his associates.
Both mean left ventricular mass (169 g) and mean left ventricular mass index (41 g/m2) were significantly higher in participants who’d had childhood asthma than in those who had not (158 g and 38 g/m2, respectively). This correlation was independent of major cardiovascular risk factors such as race, smoking status, hypertension status, use of antihypertensive medications, C-reactive protein levels, heart rate, and body mass index, the investigators said (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.03.009).
The association was strongest among young adults who had higher systolic blood pressure (prehypertension or hypertension).
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Sun and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Sun et al. report that healthy young adults who had asthma during childhood have a significantly greater left ventricular mass index, by about 8%, than do those who didn’t have the condition.
On an individual patient level, such a difference confers a relatively small incremental risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a roughly 1.08-fold increase. However, at the population level, where there are many major comorbidities, the public health implications could be substantial. Targeting these patients for intensified cardiovascular risk reduction could have important benefits.
John S. Gottdiener, MD, is at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottdiener made these remarks in an editorial comment accompanying Dr. Sun’s report (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.05.003).
Sun et al. report that healthy young adults who had asthma during childhood have a significantly greater left ventricular mass index, by about 8%, than do those who didn’t have the condition.
On an individual patient level, such a difference confers a relatively small incremental risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a roughly 1.08-fold increase. However, at the population level, where there are many major comorbidities, the public health implications could be substantial. Targeting these patients for intensified cardiovascular risk reduction could have important benefits.
John S. Gottdiener, MD, is at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottdiener made these remarks in an editorial comment accompanying Dr. Sun’s report (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.05.003).
Sun et al. report that healthy young adults who had asthma during childhood have a significantly greater left ventricular mass index, by about 8%, than do those who didn’t have the condition.
On an individual patient level, such a difference confers a relatively small incremental risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a roughly 1.08-fold increase. However, at the population level, where there are many major comorbidities, the public health implications could be substantial. Targeting these patients for intensified cardiovascular risk reduction could have important benefits.
John S. Gottdiener, MD, is at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottdiener made these remarks in an editorial comment accompanying Dr. Sun’s report (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.05.003).
A history of childhood asthma correlates with high left ventricular mass, a prominent indicator of cardiac damage, in asymptomatic healthy young adults, according to a report published online June 26 in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Our data suggest that aggressive lifestyle modifications or even pharmacologic treatment may be applied to people with a [childhood] history of asthma. … to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dianjianyi Sun, MD, PhD, of the department of epidemiology, Tulane University, New Orleans, and his associates.
Both mean left ventricular mass (169 g) and mean left ventricular mass index (41 g/m2) were significantly higher in participants who’d had childhood asthma than in those who had not (158 g and 38 g/m2, respectively). This correlation was independent of major cardiovascular risk factors such as race, smoking status, hypertension status, use of antihypertensive medications, C-reactive protein levels, heart rate, and body mass index, the investigators said (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.03.009).
The association was strongest among young adults who had higher systolic blood pressure (prehypertension or hypertension).
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Sun and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
A history of childhood asthma correlates with high left ventricular mass, a prominent indicator of cardiac damage, in asymptomatic healthy young adults, according to a report published online June 26 in JACC: Heart Failure.
“Our data suggest that aggressive lifestyle modifications or even pharmacologic treatment may be applied to people with a [childhood] history of asthma. … to lower cardiovascular risk,” said Dianjianyi Sun, MD, PhD, of the department of epidemiology, Tulane University, New Orleans, and his associates.
Both mean left ventricular mass (169 g) and mean left ventricular mass index (41 g/m2) were significantly higher in participants who’d had childhood asthma than in those who had not (158 g and 38 g/m2, respectively). This correlation was independent of major cardiovascular risk factors such as race, smoking status, hypertension status, use of antihypertensive medications, C-reactive protein levels, heart rate, and body mass index, the investigators said (JACC: Heart Failure. 2017 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.03.009).
The association was strongest among young adults who had higher systolic blood pressure (prehypertension or hypertension).
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Sun and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM JACC: HEART FAILURE
Key clinical point: Childhood asthma is associated with high left ventricular mass in asymptomatic young adults.
Major finding: Both mean left ventricular mass (169 g) and mean left ventricular mass index (41 g/m2) were significantly higher in participants who’d had childhood asthma than in those who had not (158 g and 38 g/m2, respectively).
Data source: A secondary analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study, involving 1,118 participants followed for an average of 10 years.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Sun and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FDA advisory committee supports new CV liraglutide indication
A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.
Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.
If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.
Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.
All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.
“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.
Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.
“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.
“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.
Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.
“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.
In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.
“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.
Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.
“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”
The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.
However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.
“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.
“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.
The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.
In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.
EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.
Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.
If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.
Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.
All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.
“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.
Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.
“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.
“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.
Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.
“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.
In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.
“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.
Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.
“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”
The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.
However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.
“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.
“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.
The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.
In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.
EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 17-2 in support of a supplemental new drug application for liraglutide (Victoza) injections to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.
Novo Nordisk, the maker of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, proposed the additional indication for liraglutide as an adjunct to standard treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in such patients based solely on the results of the randomized, placebo-controlled postmarketing LEADER trial.
If this additional indication for liraglutide is approved by the FDA, the drug would join the antidiabetic drug empagliflozin (Jardiance) in having a second indication for the reduction of the risk of cardiovascular death. The supplemental new drug application for Jardiance was approved by the FDA in December 2016 – also based on the results of a single trial (the EMPA-REG outcomes trial). Of note, the American Diabetes Association in its 2017 Standards of Medical Care has already called for consideration of both liraglutide and empagliflozin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and documented cardiovascular disease.
Liraglutide is currently approved for blood glucose lowering in adults with type 2 diabetes and is marketed as Saxenda for the treatment of overweight and obese adults with at least one weight-related comorbidity. It was shown in the LEADER trial to be associated with a significant 13% lower risk vs. placebo for a composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes.
All 19 voting members of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDAC) agreed that the LEADER results confirm there is no excess cardiovascular risk associated with liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes, but, on the question of whether the results provide “the substantial evidence required to establish that liraglutide 1.8 mg reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease,” almost all voting members expressed concerns about subgroup analyses showing reduced benefit among U.S. patients, compared with those from other countries.
“I think probably the most influential finding for me was the overall cardiovascular mortality finding, followed by the consistency of the results,” said biostatistics expert James D. Neaton, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He added that the indication should focus on patients at high cardiovascular event risk, as the LEADER population was a very high risk group.
Similarly, temporary voting member Marvin A. Konstam, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, said “the primary trial results are very robust and substantiated.
“And I think the cardiovascular mortality is the biggest contributor to that, which is obviously a very important finding,” he said, also stressing that the indication should focus on patients with established cardiovascular disease.
“I am concerned about the U.S. population, but at the end of the day, it’s a subgroup, and I just can’t overrate that to diminish the overall finding,” he added.
Peter W.F. Wilson, MD, EMDAC chairperson, said he “wrestles with exactly who benefits the most because of overlapping of some of the groupings.
“But people who really have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ... are probably the people who will benefit the most, and I hope those are the people who will get it,” said Dr. Wilson, professor of medicine at Emory University, professor of public health at Rollins School of Public Health, and director of epidemiology and genomic medicine at the Atlanta VA Medical Center.
In explaining his “no” vote, Daniel Budnitz, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said his was a tough decision, but that ultimately, since the U.S. population is the one the FDA is addressing with its labeling, the subgroup concerns weighed heavily.
“And I do worry about a slippery slope of using single-trial data for new indications, when there are questions and when you do have an interaction term for the U.S. vs. the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he would like to see either another international trial where the United States population does not differ from the rest of the world, or a U.S. trial.
Carmen J. Allegra, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, also voted no, and said he, too, was concerned by the subgroup analysis.
“I was very much concerned and swayed by the subgroup analysis. The U.S. target population is a pretty darn important population for us to consider, and we saw a significant interaction with outcomes vs. the region by the FDA’s analysis,” he said. “I was really swayed by the fact that we really didn’t see evidence of superiority in the U.S. population.”
The LEADER trial, which was designed in accordance with FDA Guidance issued in 2008 to demonstrate that new antidiabetes drugs do not result in unacceptably increased cardiovascular risk, included 9,340 patients who were randomized to receive liraglutide or placebo as add-on to standard of care treatment and who were followed for a median of 3.8 years. Those randomized to receive liraglutide experienced significantly lower risk of the composite primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87), Notably, the effect was diminished among U.S. patients, compared with the overall benefit.
However, after hearing LEADER analyses from Novo Nordisk representatives and FDA representatives, and testimony from numerous individuals, including patients, physicians, and patient advocates who spoke overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the supplemental drug application, the committee recommended that approval.
“This was not a slam dunk. I think the subgroup analysis was interesting discussion, but in the end you have to take the data and the primary outcome measure as what you move on,” said temporary voting member David C. Robbins, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, adding that “the good is outweighing the bad on this.
“I’m glad to see diabetes management moving toward more than lowering blood sugar. It’s a good step in the right direction,” he said.
The FDA, which usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, will now consider the supplemental new drug application for liraglutide.
In a statement released after the vote, Todd Hobbs, MD, vice president and U.S. chief medical officer of Novo Nordisk, noted that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for people with type 2 diabetes. The discussion during the EMDAC meeting is “an important reminder that there is an unmet need to provide benefits beyond HbA1c control” in patients with type 2 diabetes.
EMDAC committee members were screened and found to be in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws; one (Dr. Konstam) was granted a waiver in accordance with rules allowing such waivers when the need for an individual’s service outweighs any potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Konstam reported financial relationships with competing firms.
Rest dyspnea dims as acute heart failure treatment target
PARIS – During the most recent pharmaceutical generation, drug development for heart failure largely focused on acute heart failure, and specifically on patients with rest dyspnea as the primary manifestation of their acute heart failure decompensation events.
That has now changed, agreed heart failure experts as they debated the upshot of sobering results from two neutral trials that failed to show a midterm mortality benefit in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure who underwent aggressive management of their congestion using 2 days of intravenous treatment with either of two potent vasodilating drugs. Results first reported in November 2016 failed to show a survival benefit from ularitide in the 2,100-patient TRUE-AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 18;376[20]:1956-64). And results reported at a meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC failed to show a survival benefit from serelaxin in more than 6,500 acute heart failure patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF) trial.
The failure of a 2-day infusion of serelaxin to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death in RELAX-AHF-2 was especially surprising because the predecessor trial, RELAX-AHF, which randomized only 1,160 patients and used a surrogate endpoint of dyspnea improvement, had shown significant benefit that hinted more clinically meaningful benefits might also result from serelaxin treatment (Lancet. 2013 Jan 5;381[9860]:29-39). The disappointing serelaxin and ularitide results also culminate a series of studies using several different agents or procedures to treat acute decompensated heart failure patients that all failed to produce a reduction in deaths.
“This is a sea change; make no mistake. We will need a more targeted, selective approach. It was always a daunting proposition to believe that short-term infusion could have an effect 6 months later. We were misled by the analogy [of acute heart failure] to acute coronary syndrome,” said Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of medicine at the University of Zürich.
The right time to intervene
Meeting attendees offered several hypotheses to explain why the acute ularitide and serelaxin trials both failed to show a mortality benefit, with timing of treatment the most common denominator.
Acute heart failure “is an event, not a disease,” declared Milton Packer, MD, lead investigator of TRUE-AHF, during a session devoted to vasodilator treatment of acute heart failure. Acute heart failure decompensations “are fluctuations in a chronic disease. It doesn’t matter what you do during the episode – it matters what you do between acute episodes. We focus all our attention on which vasodilator and which dose of Lasix [furosemide], but we send patients home on inadequate chronic therapy. It doesn’t matter what you do to the dyspnea, the shortness of breath will get better. Do we need a new drug that makes dyspnea go away an hour sooner and doesn’t cost a fortune? What really matters is what patients do between acute episodes and how to prevent them, ” said Dr. Packer, distinguished scholar in cardiovascular science at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Dr. Packer strongly urged clinicians to put heart failure patients on the full regimen of guideline-directed drugs and at full dosages, a step he thinks would go a long way toward preventing a majority of decompensation episodes. “Chronic heart failure treatment has improved dramatically, but implementation is abysmal,” he said.
Of course, at this phase of their disease heart failure patients are usually at home, which more or less demands that the treatments they take are oral or at least delivered by subcutaneous injection.
“We’ve had a mismatch of candidate drugs, which have mostly been IV infusions, with a clinical setting where an IV infusion is challenging to use.”
“We are killing good drugs by the way we’re testing them,” commented Javed Butler, MD, who bemoaned the ignominious outcome of serelaxin treatment in RELAX-AHF-2. “The available data show it makes no sense to treat for just 2 days. We should take true worsening heart failure patients, those who are truly failing standard treatment, and look at new chronic oral therapies to try on them.” Oral drugs similar to serelaxin and ularitide could be used chronically, suggested Dr. Butler, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) School of Medicine.
Wrong patients with the wrong presentation
Perhaps just as big a flaw of the acute heart failure trials has been their target patient population, patients with rest dyspnea at the time of admission. “Why do we think that dyspnea is a clinically relevant symptom for acute heart failure?” Dr. Packer asked.
Dr. Cleland and his associates analyzed data on 116,752 hospitalizations for acute heart failure in England and Wales during April 2007–March 2013, a database that included more than 90% of hospitals for these regions. “We found that a large proportion of admitted patients did not have breathlessness at rest as their primary reason for seeking hospitalization. For about half the patients, moderate or severe peripheral edema was the main problem,” he reported. Roughly a third of patients had rest dyspnea as their main symptom.
An unadjusted analysis also showed a stronger link between peripheral edema and the rate of mortality during a median follow-up of about a year following hospitalization, compared with rest dyspnea. Compared with the lowest-risk subgroup, the patients with severe peripheral edema (18% of the population) had more than twice the mortality. In contrast, the patients with the most severe rest dyspnea and no evidence at all of peripheral edema, just 6% of the population, had a 50% higher mortality rate than the lowest-risk patients.
”It’s peripheral edema rather than breathlessness that is the important determinant of length of stay and prognosis. The disastrous neutral trials for acute heart failure have all targeted the breathless subset of patients. Maybe a reason for the failures has been that they’ve been treating a problem that does not exist. The trials have looked at the wrong patients,” Dr. Cleland said.
‘We’ve told the wrong story to industry” about the importance of rest dyspnea to acute heart failure patients. “When we say acute heart failure, we mean an ambulance and oxygen and the emergency department and rapid IV treatment. That’s breathlessness. Patients with peripheral edema usually get driven in and walk from the car to a wheelchair and they wait 4 hours to be seen. I think that, following the TRUE-AHF and RELAX-AHF-2 results, we’ll see a radical change.”
But just because the focus should be on peripheral edema rather than dyspnea, that doesn’t mean better drugs aren’t needed, Dr. Cleland added.
“We need better treatments to deal with congestion. Once a patient is congested, we are not very good at getting rid of it. We depend on diuretics, which we don’t use properly. Ultimately I’d like to see agents as adjuncts to diuretics, to produce better kidney function.” But treatments for breathlessness are decent as they now exist: furosemide plus oxygen. When a simple, cheap drug works 80% of the time, it is really hard to improve on that.” The real unmet needs for treating acute decompensated heart failure are patients with rest dyspnea who don’t respond to conventional treatment, and especially patients with gross peripheral edema plus low blood pressure and renal dysfunction for whom no good treatments have been developed, Dr. Cleland said.
Another flaw in the patient selection criteria for the acute heart failure studies has been the focus on patients with elevated blood pressures, the logical target for vasodilator drugs that lower blood pressure, noted Dr. Felker. “But these are the patients at lowest risk. We’ve had a mismatch between the patients with the biggest need and the patients we actually study, which relates to the types of drugs we’ve developed.”
Acute heart failure remains a target
Despite all the talk of refocusing attention on chronic heart failure and peripheral edema, at least one expert remained steadfast in talking up the importance of new acute interventions.
Part of the problem in believing that existing treatments can adequately manage heart failure and prevent acute decompensations is that about 75% of acute heart failure episodes either occur as the first presentation of heart failure, or occur in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a type of heart failure that, until recently, had no chronic drug regimens with widely acknowledged efficacy for HFpEF. (The 2017 U.S. heart failure management guidelines update listed aldosterone receptor antagonists as a class IIb recommendation for treating HFpEF, the first time guidelines have sanctioned a drug class for treating HFpEF [Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509].)
“For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, you can give optimal treatments and [decompensations] are prevented,” noted Dr. Mebazaa, a professor of anesthesiology and resuscitation at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. “But for the huge number of HFpEF patients we have nothing. Acute heart failure will remain prevalent, and we still don’t have the right drugs to use on these patients.”
The TRUE-AHF trial was sponsored by Cardiorentis. RELAX-AHF-2 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Ruschitzka has been a speaker on behalf of Novartis, and has been a speaker for or consultant to several companies and was a coinvestigator for TRUE-AHF and received fees from Cardiorentis for his participation. Dr. Packer is a consultant to and stockholder in Cardiorentis and has been a consultant to several other companies. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Novartis and several other companies and was a coinvestigator on RELAX-AHF-2. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Cleland has received research support from Novartis, and he has been a consultant to and received research support from several other companies. Dr. Mebazaa has received honoraria from Novartis and Cardiorentis as well as from several other companies and was a coinvestigator on TRUE-AHF.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
PARIS – During the most recent pharmaceutical generation, drug development for heart failure largely focused on acute heart failure, and specifically on patients with rest dyspnea as the primary manifestation of their acute heart failure decompensation events.
That has now changed, agreed heart failure experts as they debated the upshot of sobering results from two neutral trials that failed to show a midterm mortality benefit in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure who underwent aggressive management of their congestion using 2 days of intravenous treatment with either of two potent vasodilating drugs. Results first reported in November 2016 failed to show a survival benefit from ularitide in the 2,100-patient TRUE-AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 18;376[20]:1956-64). And results reported at a meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC failed to show a survival benefit from serelaxin in more than 6,500 acute heart failure patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF) trial.
The failure of a 2-day infusion of serelaxin to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death in RELAX-AHF-2 was especially surprising because the predecessor trial, RELAX-AHF, which randomized only 1,160 patients and used a surrogate endpoint of dyspnea improvement, had shown significant benefit that hinted more clinically meaningful benefits might also result from serelaxin treatment (Lancet. 2013 Jan 5;381[9860]:29-39). The disappointing serelaxin and ularitide results also culminate a series of studies using several different agents or procedures to treat acute decompensated heart failure patients that all failed to produce a reduction in deaths.
“This is a sea change; make no mistake. We will need a more targeted, selective approach. It was always a daunting proposition to believe that short-term infusion could have an effect 6 months later. We were misled by the analogy [of acute heart failure] to acute coronary syndrome,” said Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of medicine at the University of Zürich.
The right time to intervene
Meeting attendees offered several hypotheses to explain why the acute ularitide and serelaxin trials both failed to show a mortality benefit, with timing of treatment the most common denominator.
Acute heart failure “is an event, not a disease,” declared Milton Packer, MD, lead investigator of TRUE-AHF, during a session devoted to vasodilator treatment of acute heart failure. Acute heart failure decompensations “are fluctuations in a chronic disease. It doesn’t matter what you do during the episode – it matters what you do between acute episodes. We focus all our attention on which vasodilator and which dose of Lasix [furosemide], but we send patients home on inadequate chronic therapy. It doesn’t matter what you do to the dyspnea, the shortness of breath will get better. Do we need a new drug that makes dyspnea go away an hour sooner and doesn’t cost a fortune? What really matters is what patients do between acute episodes and how to prevent them, ” said Dr. Packer, distinguished scholar in cardiovascular science at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Dr. Packer strongly urged clinicians to put heart failure patients on the full regimen of guideline-directed drugs and at full dosages, a step he thinks would go a long way toward preventing a majority of decompensation episodes. “Chronic heart failure treatment has improved dramatically, but implementation is abysmal,” he said.
Of course, at this phase of their disease heart failure patients are usually at home, which more or less demands that the treatments they take are oral or at least delivered by subcutaneous injection.
“We’ve had a mismatch of candidate drugs, which have mostly been IV infusions, with a clinical setting where an IV infusion is challenging to use.”
“We are killing good drugs by the way we’re testing them,” commented Javed Butler, MD, who bemoaned the ignominious outcome of serelaxin treatment in RELAX-AHF-2. “The available data show it makes no sense to treat for just 2 days. We should take true worsening heart failure patients, those who are truly failing standard treatment, and look at new chronic oral therapies to try on them.” Oral drugs similar to serelaxin and ularitide could be used chronically, suggested Dr. Butler, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) School of Medicine.
Wrong patients with the wrong presentation
Perhaps just as big a flaw of the acute heart failure trials has been their target patient population, patients with rest dyspnea at the time of admission. “Why do we think that dyspnea is a clinically relevant symptom for acute heart failure?” Dr. Packer asked.
Dr. Cleland and his associates analyzed data on 116,752 hospitalizations for acute heart failure in England and Wales during April 2007–March 2013, a database that included more than 90% of hospitals for these regions. “We found that a large proportion of admitted patients did not have breathlessness at rest as their primary reason for seeking hospitalization. For about half the patients, moderate or severe peripheral edema was the main problem,” he reported. Roughly a third of patients had rest dyspnea as their main symptom.
An unadjusted analysis also showed a stronger link between peripheral edema and the rate of mortality during a median follow-up of about a year following hospitalization, compared with rest dyspnea. Compared with the lowest-risk subgroup, the patients with severe peripheral edema (18% of the population) had more than twice the mortality. In contrast, the patients with the most severe rest dyspnea and no evidence at all of peripheral edema, just 6% of the population, had a 50% higher mortality rate than the lowest-risk patients.
”It’s peripheral edema rather than breathlessness that is the important determinant of length of stay and prognosis. The disastrous neutral trials for acute heart failure have all targeted the breathless subset of patients. Maybe a reason for the failures has been that they’ve been treating a problem that does not exist. The trials have looked at the wrong patients,” Dr. Cleland said.
‘We’ve told the wrong story to industry” about the importance of rest dyspnea to acute heart failure patients. “When we say acute heart failure, we mean an ambulance and oxygen and the emergency department and rapid IV treatment. That’s breathlessness. Patients with peripheral edema usually get driven in and walk from the car to a wheelchair and they wait 4 hours to be seen. I think that, following the TRUE-AHF and RELAX-AHF-2 results, we’ll see a radical change.”
But just because the focus should be on peripheral edema rather than dyspnea, that doesn’t mean better drugs aren’t needed, Dr. Cleland added.
“We need better treatments to deal with congestion. Once a patient is congested, we are not very good at getting rid of it. We depend on diuretics, which we don’t use properly. Ultimately I’d like to see agents as adjuncts to diuretics, to produce better kidney function.” But treatments for breathlessness are decent as they now exist: furosemide plus oxygen. When a simple, cheap drug works 80% of the time, it is really hard to improve on that.” The real unmet needs for treating acute decompensated heart failure are patients with rest dyspnea who don’t respond to conventional treatment, and especially patients with gross peripheral edema plus low blood pressure and renal dysfunction for whom no good treatments have been developed, Dr. Cleland said.
Another flaw in the patient selection criteria for the acute heart failure studies has been the focus on patients with elevated blood pressures, the logical target for vasodilator drugs that lower blood pressure, noted Dr. Felker. “But these are the patients at lowest risk. We’ve had a mismatch between the patients with the biggest need and the patients we actually study, which relates to the types of drugs we’ve developed.”
Acute heart failure remains a target
Despite all the talk of refocusing attention on chronic heart failure and peripheral edema, at least one expert remained steadfast in talking up the importance of new acute interventions.
Part of the problem in believing that existing treatments can adequately manage heart failure and prevent acute decompensations is that about 75% of acute heart failure episodes either occur as the first presentation of heart failure, or occur in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a type of heart failure that, until recently, had no chronic drug regimens with widely acknowledged efficacy for HFpEF. (The 2017 U.S. heart failure management guidelines update listed aldosterone receptor antagonists as a class IIb recommendation for treating HFpEF, the first time guidelines have sanctioned a drug class for treating HFpEF [Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509].)
“For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, you can give optimal treatments and [decompensations] are prevented,” noted Dr. Mebazaa, a professor of anesthesiology and resuscitation at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. “But for the huge number of HFpEF patients we have nothing. Acute heart failure will remain prevalent, and we still don’t have the right drugs to use on these patients.”
The TRUE-AHF trial was sponsored by Cardiorentis. RELAX-AHF-2 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Ruschitzka has been a speaker on behalf of Novartis, and has been a speaker for or consultant to several companies and was a coinvestigator for TRUE-AHF and received fees from Cardiorentis for his participation. Dr. Packer is a consultant to and stockholder in Cardiorentis and has been a consultant to several other companies. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Novartis and several other companies and was a coinvestigator on RELAX-AHF-2. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Cleland has received research support from Novartis, and he has been a consultant to and received research support from several other companies. Dr. Mebazaa has received honoraria from Novartis and Cardiorentis as well as from several other companies and was a coinvestigator on TRUE-AHF.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
PARIS – During the most recent pharmaceutical generation, drug development for heart failure largely focused on acute heart failure, and specifically on patients with rest dyspnea as the primary manifestation of their acute heart failure decompensation events.
That has now changed, agreed heart failure experts as they debated the upshot of sobering results from two neutral trials that failed to show a midterm mortality benefit in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure who underwent aggressive management of their congestion using 2 days of intravenous treatment with either of two potent vasodilating drugs. Results first reported in November 2016 failed to show a survival benefit from ularitide in the 2,100-patient TRUE-AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 18;376[20]:1956-64). And results reported at a meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC failed to show a survival benefit from serelaxin in more than 6,500 acute heart failure patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF) trial.
The failure of a 2-day infusion of serelaxin to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death in RELAX-AHF-2 was especially surprising because the predecessor trial, RELAX-AHF, which randomized only 1,160 patients and used a surrogate endpoint of dyspnea improvement, had shown significant benefit that hinted more clinically meaningful benefits might also result from serelaxin treatment (Lancet. 2013 Jan 5;381[9860]:29-39). The disappointing serelaxin and ularitide results also culminate a series of studies using several different agents or procedures to treat acute decompensated heart failure patients that all failed to produce a reduction in deaths.
“This is a sea change; make no mistake. We will need a more targeted, selective approach. It was always a daunting proposition to believe that short-term infusion could have an effect 6 months later. We were misled by the analogy [of acute heart failure] to acute coronary syndrome,” said Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of medicine at the University of Zürich.
The right time to intervene
Meeting attendees offered several hypotheses to explain why the acute ularitide and serelaxin trials both failed to show a mortality benefit, with timing of treatment the most common denominator.
Acute heart failure “is an event, not a disease,” declared Milton Packer, MD, lead investigator of TRUE-AHF, during a session devoted to vasodilator treatment of acute heart failure. Acute heart failure decompensations “are fluctuations in a chronic disease. It doesn’t matter what you do during the episode – it matters what you do between acute episodes. We focus all our attention on which vasodilator and which dose of Lasix [furosemide], but we send patients home on inadequate chronic therapy. It doesn’t matter what you do to the dyspnea, the shortness of breath will get better. Do we need a new drug that makes dyspnea go away an hour sooner and doesn’t cost a fortune? What really matters is what patients do between acute episodes and how to prevent them, ” said Dr. Packer, distinguished scholar in cardiovascular science at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Dr. Packer strongly urged clinicians to put heart failure patients on the full regimen of guideline-directed drugs and at full dosages, a step he thinks would go a long way toward preventing a majority of decompensation episodes. “Chronic heart failure treatment has improved dramatically, but implementation is abysmal,” he said.
Of course, at this phase of their disease heart failure patients are usually at home, which more or less demands that the treatments they take are oral or at least delivered by subcutaneous injection.
“We’ve had a mismatch of candidate drugs, which have mostly been IV infusions, with a clinical setting where an IV infusion is challenging to use.”
“We are killing good drugs by the way we’re testing them,” commented Javed Butler, MD, who bemoaned the ignominious outcome of serelaxin treatment in RELAX-AHF-2. “The available data show it makes no sense to treat for just 2 days. We should take true worsening heart failure patients, those who are truly failing standard treatment, and look at new chronic oral therapies to try on them.” Oral drugs similar to serelaxin and ularitide could be used chronically, suggested Dr. Butler, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) School of Medicine.
Wrong patients with the wrong presentation
Perhaps just as big a flaw of the acute heart failure trials has been their target patient population, patients with rest dyspnea at the time of admission. “Why do we think that dyspnea is a clinically relevant symptom for acute heart failure?” Dr. Packer asked.
Dr. Cleland and his associates analyzed data on 116,752 hospitalizations for acute heart failure in England and Wales during April 2007–March 2013, a database that included more than 90% of hospitals for these regions. “We found that a large proportion of admitted patients did not have breathlessness at rest as their primary reason for seeking hospitalization. For about half the patients, moderate or severe peripheral edema was the main problem,” he reported. Roughly a third of patients had rest dyspnea as their main symptom.
An unadjusted analysis also showed a stronger link between peripheral edema and the rate of mortality during a median follow-up of about a year following hospitalization, compared with rest dyspnea. Compared with the lowest-risk subgroup, the patients with severe peripheral edema (18% of the population) had more than twice the mortality. In contrast, the patients with the most severe rest dyspnea and no evidence at all of peripheral edema, just 6% of the population, had a 50% higher mortality rate than the lowest-risk patients.
”It’s peripheral edema rather than breathlessness that is the important determinant of length of stay and prognosis. The disastrous neutral trials for acute heart failure have all targeted the breathless subset of patients. Maybe a reason for the failures has been that they’ve been treating a problem that does not exist. The trials have looked at the wrong patients,” Dr. Cleland said.
‘We’ve told the wrong story to industry” about the importance of rest dyspnea to acute heart failure patients. “When we say acute heart failure, we mean an ambulance and oxygen and the emergency department and rapid IV treatment. That’s breathlessness. Patients with peripheral edema usually get driven in and walk from the car to a wheelchair and they wait 4 hours to be seen. I think that, following the TRUE-AHF and RELAX-AHF-2 results, we’ll see a radical change.”
But just because the focus should be on peripheral edema rather than dyspnea, that doesn’t mean better drugs aren’t needed, Dr. Cleland added.
“We need better treatments to deal with congestion. Once a patient is congested, we are not very good at getting rid of it. We depend on diuretics, which we don’t use properly. Ultimately I’d like to see agents as adjuncts to diuretics, to produce better kidney function.” But treatments for breathlessness are decent as they now exist: furosemide plus oxygen. When a simple, cheap drug works 80% of the time, it is really hard to improve on that.” The real unmet needs for treating acute decompensated heart failure are patients with rest dyspnea who don’t respond to conventional treatment, and especially patients with gross peripheral edema plus low blood pressure and renal dysfunction for whom no good treatments have been developed, Dr. Cleland said.
Another flaw in the patient selection criteria for the acute heart failure studies has been the focus on patients with elevated blood pressures, the logical target for vasodilator drugs that lower blood pressure, noted Dr. Felker. “But these are the patients at lowest risk. We’ve had a mismatch between the patients with the biggest need and the patients we actually study, which relates to the types of drugs we’ve developed.”
Acute heart failure remains a target
Despite all the talk of refocusing attention on chronic heart failure and peripheral edema, at least one expert remained steadfast in talking up the importance of new acute interventions.
Part of the problem in believing that existing treatments can adequately manage heart failure and prevent acute decompensations is that about 75% of acute heart failure episodes either occur as the first presentation of heart failure, or occur in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a type of heart failure that, until recently, had no chronic drug regimens with widely acknowledged efficacy for HFpEF. (The 2017 U.S. heart failure management guidelines update listed aldosterone receptor antagonists as a class IIb recommendation for treating HFpEF, the first time guidelines have sanctioned a drug class for treating HFpEF [Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509].)
“For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, you can give optimal treatments and [decompensations] are prevented,” noted Dr. Mebazaa, a professor of anesthesiology and resuscitation at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. “But for the huge number of HFpEF patients we have nothing. Acute heart failure will remain prevalent, and we still don’t have the right drugs to use on these patients.”
The TRUE-AHF trial was sponsored by Cardiorentis. RELAX-AHF-2 was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Ruschitzka has been a speaker on behalf of Novartis, and has been a speaker for or consultant to several companies and was a coinvestigator for TRUE-AHF and received fees from Cardiorentis for his participation. Dr. Packer is a consultant to and stockholder in Cardiorentis and has been a consultant to several other companies. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Novartis and several other companies and was a coinvestigator on RELAX-AHF-2. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Cleland has received research support from Novartis, and he has been a consultant to and received research support from several other companies. Dr. Mebazaa has received honoraria from Novartis and Cardiorentis as well as from several other companies and was a coinvestigator on TRUE-AHF.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM HEART FAILURE 2017