8 results on '"S Zieroth"'
Search Results
2. Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.
- Author
-
Fudim M, Cyr DD, Ward JH, Hernandez AF, Lepage S, Morrow DA, Sharma K, Claggett BL, Starling RC, Velazquez EJ, Williamson KM, Desai AS, Zieroth S, Solomon SD, Braunwald E, and Mentz RJ
- Subjects
- Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Double-Blind Method, Drug Combinations, Heart Failure drug therapy, Heart Failure physiopathology, Natriuretic Peptide, Brain blood, Peptide Fragments blood, Stroke Volume physiology, Stroke Volume drug effects, Treatment Outcome, Aminobutyrates therapeutic use, Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists therapeutic use, Biphenyl Compounds, Blood Pressure drug effects, Blood Pressure physiology, Hypotension, Tetrazoles therapeutic use, Tetrazoles administration & dosage, Valsartan
- Abstract
Background: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients., Methods: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels., Results: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42)., Conclusion: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.)., Competing Interests: Disclosures MF was supported by the NIH and Doris Duke, received consulting fees from Abbott, Ajax, Alio Health, Alleviant, Artha, Audicor, AxonTherapies, Bayer, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, Broadview, Cadence, Cardioflow, Cardionomics, Coridea, CVRx, Daxor, Deerfield Catalyst, Edwards LifeSciences, Echosens, EKO, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, FutureCardia, Galvani, Gradient, Hatteras, HemodynamiQ, Impulse Dynamics, Intershunt, Medtronic, Merck, NIMedical, NovoNordisk, NucleusRx, NXT Biomedical, Orchestra, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Presidio, Procyreon, ReCor, Rockley, SCPharma, Shifamed, Splendo, Summacor, SyMap, Verily, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. DAM is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women's Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences and has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. KS serves as an advisory board member and/or consultant to AstraZeneca, Alleviant, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Imbria, Novartis, NovoNordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia. She receives grant funding from Amgen and American Heart Association. SDS has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos, and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, and Akros. RCS serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial, sponsored by Novartis. EJV reports grants from Novartis, Amgen, Phillips, and NHLBI/NIH. SDS has received research grants has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gossamer, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, Valo. ASD has received research grants (to BWH) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis and personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, Veristat. SZ received research grant support, served on advisory boards for or speaker engagements with Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier and Vifor Pharma; and serves on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. EB reports grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode), for serving on the executive committee of the PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI [angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor] vs ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an advisory board meeting. RJM receives research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, AmericanRegent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. JHW, SS and KMW are employees of Novartis. AFH reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Somologic, Verily and consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squib Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. The HFSA Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship Consensus Conference.
- Author
-
Drazner MH, Ambardekar AV, Berlacher K, Blumer V, Chatur S, Cheng R, Cheng RK, Grandin EW, Gorodeski EZ, Kataria R, Katz JN, Kittleson MM, Krishnamoorthy A, Lala A, Lenneman AJ, Lohr NL, Margulies KB, Mentz RJ, Reza N, Wilcox J, Youmans QR, Zieroth S, and Teerlink JR
- Subjects
- Humans, Fellowships and Scholarships, Quality of Life, Consensus, Heart Failure diagnosis, Heart Failure surgery, Cardiology
- Abstract
There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFmrEF and HFpEF With a Worsening Heart Failure Event.
- Author
-
Mentz RJ, Ward JH, Hernandez AF, Lepage S, Morrow DA, Sarwat S, Sharma K, Solomon SD, Starling RC, Velazquez EJ, Williamson K, Zieroth S, and Braunwald E
- Subjects
- Humans, Female, Middle Aged, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Adolescent, Male, Stroke Volume, Tetrazoles therapeutic use, Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists therapeutic use, Valsartan, Aminobutyrates therapeutic use, Biphenyl Compounds, Drug Combinations, Heart Failure diagnosis, Heart Failure drug therapy, Heart Failure chemically induced
- Abstract
Background: The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients., Methods: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia., Results: The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m
2 ). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital., Conclusions: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Participating in the Peer Review Process: The Journal of Cardiac Failure Construct.
- Author
-
Joyce E, McIllvennan CK, Esquivel JH, Sauer AJ, Correa A, Blumer V, Youmans QR, Alvarez-Garcia J, Chang H, Overbey J, Deych E, Sinha SS, Morris A, Defilippis EM, Reza N, Code J, Hajduczok AG, Fudim M, Rollins B, Vader JM, Pina IL, Teuteberg J, Zieroth S, Starling RC, Gulati M, Mentz RJ, and Lala A
- Subjects
- Humans, Editorial Policies, Heart Failure therapy
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.
- Author
-
Bozkurt B, Coats AJ, Tsutsui H, Abdelhamid M, Adamopoulos S, Albert N, Anker SD, Atherton J, Böhm M, Butler J, Drazner MH, Felker GM, Filippatos G, Fonarow GC, Fiuzat M, Gomez-Mesa JE, Heidenreich P, Imamura T, Januzzi J, Jankowska EA, Khazanie P, Kinugawa K, Lam CSP, Matsue Y, Metra M, Ohtani T, Francesco Piepoli M, Ponikowski P, Rosano GMC, Sakata Y, SeferoviĆ P, Starling RC, Teerlink JR, Vardeny O, Yamamoto K, Yancy C, Zhang J, and Zieroth S
- Abstract
In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Barriers to Goals of Care Discussions With Patients Who Have Advanced Heart Failure: Results of a Multicenter Survey of Hospital-Based Cardiology Clinicians.
- Author
-
You JJ, Aleksova N, Ducharme A, MacIver J, Mielniczuk L, Fowler RA, Demers C, Clarke B, Parent MC, Toma M, Strachan PH, Farand P, Isaac D, Zieroth S, Swinton M, Jiang X, Day AG, Heyland DK, and Ross HJ
- Subjects
- Adult, Canada epidemiology, Cardiologists psychology, Female, Heart Failure epidemiology, Heart Failure psychology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses psychology, Palliative Care methods, Palliative Care psychology, Pilot Projects, Terminal Care methods, Terminal Care psychology, Cardiology methods, Communication Barriers, Heart Failure therapy, Hospitals, Teaching methods, Patient Care Planning, Surveys and Questionnaires
- Abstract
Background: Conversations about goals of care in hospital are important to patients who have advanced heart failure (HF)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey of cardiology nurses, fellows, and cardiologists at 8 Canadian teaching hospitals. The primary outcome was the importance of barriers to goals-of-care discussions in hospital (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). We also elicited perspectives on roles of different practitioners in having these conversations., Results: Questionnaires were returned by 770/1024 (75.2%) eligible clinicians. The most important perceived barriers were: family members' and patients' difficulty in accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score 5.9 [1.1] and 5.7 [1.2], respectively), family members' and patients' lack of understanding about the limitations and harms of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.1] and 5.7 [1.2], respectively), and lack of agreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]). Interprofessional team members were viewed as having different but important roles in goals-of-care discussions., Conclusions: Cardiology clinicians perceive family and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals-of-care discussions in hospital. Many members of the interprofessional team were viewed as having important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication about goals of care in advanced HF., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. The Urea-to-Creatinine Ratio Is Predictive of Worsening Kidney Function in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients.
- Author
-
Sood MM, Saeed M, Lim V, Cordova F, Komenda P, Malik A, Rigatto C, Shafer LA, Tangri N, Tappia PS, and Zieroth S
- Subjects
- Aged, Biomarkers metabolism, Cohort Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glomerular Filtration Rate physiology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Ambulatory Care trends, Blood Urea Nitrogen, Creatinine metabolism, Heart Failure diagnosis, Heart Failure metabolism, Kidney Function Tests trends
- Abstract
Background: Changes in kidney function in heart failure patients convey important prognostic information. We investigated the association of the urea-to-creatinine (BUN/Cr) ratio, the fractional excretion of urea (FeUr), and the fractional excretion of sodium (FeNa) and subsequent declines in kidney function in ambulatory heart failure patients., Methods and Results: We prospectively enrolled adult patients with ejection fraction <40% at a multidisciplinary heart failure clinic and measured serial measurements of laboratory values from September 2008 to July 2011. The study outcome was changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In 138 patients contributing 10,350 patient-hours of follow-up, we found that participants with a decline of >25% in eGFR had higher mean BUN/Cr ratio (0.110 ± 0.043 vs 0.086 ± 0.026; P = .02) and no difference in the FeNa (1.81 vs 1.43; P = .2) or FeUr (32.3 vs 37.2; P = .9) compared with those with no change. There was an association of BUN/Cr ratio with the rate of change of eGFR (coefficient -25.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.99 to -40.35; P < .0001). The BUN/Cr ratio was an independent predictor of eGFR drop >25% (odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32) and improved model discrimination (c-statistic increased from 0.624 to 0.693) and reclassification (net reclassification index 11.38% [P < .0001], integrated discrimination improvement 5.24% [P = .02])., Conclusions: The BUN/Cr ratio is associated with worsening kidney function and adds incremental risk prediction information relative to traditional predictive measures in outpatients with heart failure at risk for worsening kidney disease., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.