Search

International audience; Aims: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains associated with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life (QoL) and significant exercise limitation. Sympatho-vagal imbalance has been shown to predict adverse prognosis and symptoms in HFrEF, yet it has not been specifically targeted by any guideline-recommended device therapy to date. Barostim™, which directly addresses this imbalance, is the first Food and Drug Administration approved neuromodulation technology for HFrEF. We aimed to analyse all randomized trial evidence to evaluate the effect of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) on heart failure symptoms, QoL and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in HFrEF.Methods and results: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed on all eligible trials that randomized HFrEF patients to BAT + guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (open label). Endpoints included 6-month changes in 6-min hall walk (6MHW) distance, Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) QoL score, NT-proBNP, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in all patients and three subgroups. A total of 554 randomized patients were included. In all patients, BAT provided significant improvement in 6MHW distance of 49 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 64), MLWHF QoL of -13 points (95% CI -17, -10), and 3.4 higher odds of improving at least one NYHA class (95% CI 2.3, 4.9) when comparing from baseline to 6 months. These improvements were similar, or better, in patients who had baseline NT-proBNP

International audience; Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in the efficacy and safety of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in the BeAT-HF (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure) trial.Background: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone (control group) or BAT plus GDMT.Methods: Pre-specified subgroup analyses including change from baseline to 6 months in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHQ), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were conducted in men versus women.Results: Fifty-three women and 211 men were evaluated. Women had similar baseline NT-proBNP levels, 6MWDs, and percentage of subjects with NYHA functional class III symptoms but poorer MLWHQ scores (mean 62 ± 22 vs. 50 ± 24; p = 0.01) compared with men. Women experienced significant improvement from baseline to 6 months with BAT plus GDMT relative to GDMT alone in MLWHQ score (-34 ± 27 vs. -9 ± 23, respectively; p < 0.01), 6MWD (44 ± 45 m vs. -32 ± 118 m; p < 0.01), and improvement in NYHA functional class (70% vs. 27%; p < 0.01), similar to the responses seen in men, with no significant difference in safety. Women receiving BAT plus GDMT had a significant decrease in NT-proBNP (-43% vs. 7% with GDMT alone; difference -48%; p < 0.01), while in men this decrease was -15% versus 2%, respectively (difference -17%; p = 0.08), with an interaction p value of 0.05.Conclusions: Women in BeAT-HF had poorer baseline QoL than men but demonstrated similar improvements with BAT in 6MWD, QoL, and NYHA functional class. Women had a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, whereas men did not. (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure [BeAT-HF]; NCT02627196).; Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone (control group) or BAT plus GDMT.

International audience; Several features of cardiovascular devices raise considerations for clinical trial conduct. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials remain the highest quality evidence for safety and effectiveness assessments, but, for instance, blinding may be challenging. In order to avoid bias and not confound data interpretation, the use of objective endpoints and blinding patients, study staff, core labs, and clinical endpoint committees to treatment assignment are helpful approaches. Anticipation of potential bias should be considered and planned for prospectively in a cardiovascular device trial. Prospective, single-arm studies (often referred to as registry studies) can provide additional data in some cases. They are subject to selection bias even when carefully designed; thus, they are generally not acceptable as the sole basis for pre-market approval of high risk cardiovascular devices. However, they complement the evidence base and fill the gaps unanswered by randomized trials. Registry studies present device safety and effectiveness in day-to-day clinical practice settings and detect rare adverse events in the post-market period. No single research design will be appropriate for every cardiovascular device or target patient population. The type of trial, appropriate control group, and optimal length of follow-up will depend on the specific device, its potential clinical benefits, the target patient population and the existence (or lack) of effective therapies, and its anticipated risks. Continued efforts on the part of investigators, the device industry, and government regulators are needed to reach the optimal approach for evaluating the safety and performance of innovative devices for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.