Search

Background and Aims In patients with chronic heart failure (HF), the MONITOR-HF trial demonstrated the efficacy of pulmonary artery (PA)-guided HF therapy over standard of care in improving quality of life and reducing HF hospitalizations and mean PA pressure. This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of these benefits in relation to clinically relevant subgroups. Methods The effect of PA-guided HF therapy was evaluated in the MONITOR-HF trial among predefined subgroups based on age, sex, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, HF aetiology, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Outcome measures were based upon significance in the main trial and included quality of life-, clinical-, and PA pressure endpoints, and were assessed for each subgroup. Differential effects in relation to the subgroups were assessed with interaction terms. Both unadjusted and multiple testing adjusted interaction terms were presented. Results The effects of PA monitoring on quality of life, clinical events, and PA pressure were consistent in the predefined subgroups, without any clinically relevant heterogeneity within or across all endpoint categories (all adjusted interaction P -values were non-significant). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary endpoint quality-of-life change, weak trends towards a less pronounced effect in older patients (P interaction =.03; adjusted P interaction =.33) and diabetics (P interaction =.01; adjusted P interaction =.06) were observed. However, these interaction effects did not persist after adjusting for multiple testing. Conclusions This subgroup analysis confirmed the consistent benefits of PA-guided HF therapy observed in the MONITOR-HF trial across clinically relevant subgroups, highlighting its efficacy in improving quality of life, clinical, and PA pressure endpoints in chronic HF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure (HF), a global pandemic affecting millions of individuals, calls for adequate predictive guidance for improved therapy. Congestion, a key factor in HF‐related hospitalizations, further underscores the need for timely interventions. Proactive monitoring of intracardiac pressures, guided by pulmonary artery (PA) pressure, offers opportunities for efficient early‐stage intervention, since haemodynamic congestion precedes clinical symptoms. Methods: The BioMEMS study, a substudy of the MONITOR‐HF trial, proposes a multifaceted approach integrating blood biobank data with traditional and novel HF parameters. Two additional blood samples from 340 active participants in the MONITOR‐HF trial were collected at baseline, 3‐, 6‐, and 12‐month visits and stored for the BioMEMS biobank. The main aims are to identify the relationship between temporal biomarker patterns and PA pressures derived from the CardioMEMS‐HF system, and to identify the biomarker profile(s) associated with the risk of HF events and cardiovascular death. Conclusion: Since the prognostic value of single baseline measurements of biomarkers like N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide is limited, with the BioMEMS study we advocate a dynamic, serial approach to better capture HF progression. We will substantiate this by relating repeated biomarker measurements to PA pressures. This design rationale presents a comprehensive review on cardiac biomarkers in HF, and aims to contribute valuable insights into personalized HF therapy and patient risk assessment, advancing our ability to address the evolving nature of HF effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods Conclusions Digoxin is the oldest drug in cardiovascular (CV) medicine, and one trial conducted >25 years ago showed a reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but no effect on mortality. However, later studies suggested that the dose of digoxin used in that trial (and other studies) may have been too high. The DECISION (Digoxin Evaluation in Chronic heart failure: Investigational Study In Outpatients in the Netherlands) trial will examine the efficacy and safety of low‐dose digoxin in HF patients with reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with a background of contemporary HF treatment.The DECISION trial is a randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled event‐driven outcome trial which will investigate the efficacy and safety of low‐dose digoxin in patients with chronic HF and LVEF <50%. Both patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation will be enrolled and will be randomized (1:1) to low‐dose digoxin or matching placebo. To maintain a target serum digoxin concentration of 0.5–0.9 ng/ml, dose adjustments are made throughout follow‐up based on serum digoxin measurements with dummy values for the placebo group. The primary endpoint is a composite of CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations or total urgent hospital visits for worsening HF, and all endpoints are adjudicated blindly by a Clinical Event Committee. The estimated sample size was 982 patients who will be followed for a median of 3 years, and in December 2023 enrolment was completed after 1002 patients.The DECISION trial will provide important evidence regarding the effect of (low‐dose) digoxin on CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations and urgent hospital visits when added to contemporary HF treatment of patients with reduced or mildly reduced LVEF.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03783429. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Icosapent ethyl lowers triglycerides and significantly reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), though treatment effects may vary between individuals. This study aimed to determine the relative and absolute effects of icosapent ethyl on MACE according to baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)., Methods and Results: Participants from the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) with ASCVD were included (n = 5785). The primary outcome was 3-point MACE, i.e. non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Baseline 5-year risk of MACE was estimated using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended SMART2 risk score. Modification of the relative treatment effects of icosapent ethyl by baseline risk was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, including a treatment-by-risk interaction. Next, treatment effects were assessed stratified by quartiles of baseline risk. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range 3.2-5.3), MACE occurred in 361 vs. 489 patients in the icosapent ethyl vs. placebo group [95% confidence interval (CI)]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 (0.63-0.82), absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.4% (2.6-6.2%), number needed to treat (NNT) 23 (16-38), and 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence reduction (CIR) 5.7% (3.5-7.9%). Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced MACE in all risk quartiles, with an HR (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.43-0.88), 0.66 (0.48-0.92), 0.69 (0.53-0.90), and 0.78 (0.63-0.96), respectively (P for treatment-by-risk interaction = 0.106). The ARR (95% CI) increased across risk quartiles, i.e. was 3.9% (1.0-6.8%), 4.3% (1.2-7.3%), 5.1% (1.4-8.7%), and 5.6% (1.3-10.0%), respectively. This translates to NNTs (95% CI) of 26 (15-98), 24 (14-84), 20 (11-70), and 18 (10-77). The 5-year CIR (95% CI) was 4.8% (1.3-8.2%), 5.0% (1.3-8.7%), 6.1% (1.7-10.5%), and 7.7% (2.3-13.2%), respectively. Consistent results were obtained for 5-point MACE, additionally including coronary revascularization and unstable angina., Conclusion: Among patients with ASCVD and elevated triglyceride levels, icosapent ethyl significantly reduces the risk of MACE irrespective of baseline CVD risk, though absolute benefits are largest for patients at the highest risk., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The Low Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial randomized 5,522 patients with chronic coronary disease to colchicine 0.5mg daily or placebo in a 1:1 ratio and demonstrated the cardiovascular benefits of colchicine. In the trial, which was conducted in Australia and The Netherlands, a prespecified subgroup analysis suggested a difference in magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine by region (Australia: HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.39-0.67 vs The Netherlands: HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71-1.20). The aim of this study was to explore possible explanations for the apparent difference in magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine by region in the LoDoCo2 trial., Methods: The analysis explored potential determinants of variations in the magnitude of effectiveness of colchicine treatment across the regions. This included investigating differences in investigational product, clinical characteristics, concurrent medical therapies and the duration of follow-up using a range of statistical techniques, including sub-group, landmark and effect modification analyses., Results: No differences were found in the colchicine product used in each region. Despite minor differences observed in baseline clinical characteristics and concomitant therapies, the effect modifier analyses demonstrated that these factors did not explain the difference in magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine by region. Randomization in Australia began more than two years before The Netherlands, with shorter duration of follow-up in The Netherlands compared to Australia. In a landmark analysis, over the period when more than 90% of patients in each region had been followed, the effects of colchicine were similar (Australia hazard ratio [HR] 0.58 95% CI 0.34-0.97 vs The Netherlands HR 0.67 95% CI 0.47-0.96)., Conclusions: After examining several plausible explanations for the observed differences in the magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine between regions in the LoDoCo2 trial could be due to the differences in duration of follow-up but a substantial portion of the differences remain unexplained., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12614000093684., Competing Interests: Disclosures None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare. The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study, all study analyses, the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: Digoxin is the oldest drug in cardiovascular (CV) medicine, and one trial conducted >25 years ago showed a reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but no effect on mortality. However, later studies suggested that the dose of digoxin used in that trial (and other studies) may have been too high. The DECISION (Digoxin Evaluation in Chronic heart failure: Investigational Study In Outpatients in the Netherlands) trial will examine the efficacy and safety of low-dose digoxin in HF patients with reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with a background of contemporary HF treatment., Methods: The DECISION trial is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled event-driven outcome trial which will investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose digoxin in patients with chronic HF and LVEF <50%. Both patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation will be enrolled and will be randomized (1:1) to low-dose digoxin or matching placebo. To maintain a target serum digoxin concentration of 0.5-0.9 ng/ml, dose adjustments are made throughout follow-up based on serum digoxin measurements with dummy values for the placebo group. The primary endpoint is a composite of CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations or total urgent hospital visits for worsening HF, and all endpoints are adjudicated blindly by a Clinical Event Committee. The estimated sample size was 982 patients who will be followed for a median of 3 years, and in December 2023 enrolment was completed after 1002 patients., Conclusions: The DECISION trial will provide important evidence regarding the effect of (low-dose) digoxin on CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations and urgent hospital visits when added to contemporary HF treatment of patients with reduced or mildly reduced LVEF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03783429., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

The magnitude of exercise-induced cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations is dependent on cardiovascular health status, and previous studies have shown that occult coronary atherosclerosis is highly prevalent among amateur athletes. We tested the hypothesis that middle-aged and older athletes with coronary atherosclerosis demonstrate greater cTn elevations following a controlled endurance exercise test compared with healthy peers. We included 59 male athletes from the Measuring Athletes' Risk of Cardiovascular events 2 (MARC-2) study and stratified them as controls [coronary artery calcium score (CACS) = 0, n = 20], high CACS [≥300 Agatston units or ≥75th Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) percentile, n = 20] or significant stenosis (≥50% in any coronary artery, n = 19). Participants performed a cycling test with incremental workload until volitional exhaustion. Serial high-sensitivity cTn (hs-cTn) T and I concentrations were measured (baseline, after 30-min warm-up, and 0, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min postexercise). There were 58 participants (61 [58-69] yr) who completed the exercise test (76 ± 14 min) with a peak heart rate of 97.7 [94.8-101.8]% of their estimated maximum. Exercise duration and workload did not differ across groups. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (Hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) concentrations significantly increased (1.55 [1.33-2.14]-fold and 2.76 [1.89-3.86]-fold, respectively) over time, but patterns of cTn changes and the incidence of concentrations >99th percentile did not differ across groups. Serial sampling of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations during and following an exhaustive endurance exercise test did not reveal differences in exercise-induced cTn release between athletes with versus without coronary atherosclerosis. These findings suggest that a high CACS or a >50% stenosis in any coronary artery does not aggravate exercise-induced cTn release in middle-aged and older athletes. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Exercise-induced cardiac troponin (cTn) release is considered to be dependent on cardiovascular health status. We tested whether athletes with coronary atherosclerosis demonstrate greater exercise-induced cTn release compared with healthy peers. Athletes with coronary atherosclerosis did not differ in cTn release following exercise compared with healthy peers. Our findings suggest that a high CACS or a >50% stenosis in any coronary artery does not aggravate exercise-induced cTn release in middle-aged and older athletes.

Aims: Recent trials have shown that low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) reduces major cardiovascular events in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose colchicine therapy in patients with chronic coronary disease when added to standard background therapy., Methods and Results: This Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model used estimates of therapy effectiveness, transition probabilities, costs and quality of life obtained from the Low-dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial, as well as meta-analyses and public sources. In this trial, Low-dose colchicine was added to standard of care and compared to placebo. The main outcomes were cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary revascularisation, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), the cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), and net monetary benefit. In the model, low-dose colchicine therapy yielded 0.04 additional QALYs compared with standard of care at an incremental cost of €455 from a societal perspective and €729 from a healthcare perspective, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €12,176/QALY from a societal perspective and €19,499/QALY from a healthcare perspective. Net monetary benefit was €1,414 from a societal perspective and €1,140 from a healthcare perspective. Low-dose colchicine has a 96% and 94% chance of being cost effective, from respectively a societal and healthcare perspective when using a willingness to pay of €50,000/QALY. Net monetary benefit would decrease below zero when annual low-dose colchicine costs would exceed an annual cost of €221 per patient., Conclusion: Adding low-dose colchicine to standard of care in patients with chronic coronary disease is cost-effective according to commonly accepted thresholds in Europe and Australia and compares favourably in cost-effectiveness to other drugs used in chronic coronary disease., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)