Search

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for establishing the efficacy and safety of cardiovascular therapies. However, current pivotal trials are expensive, lengthy, and insufficiently diverse. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can potentially automate and streamline clinical trial operations. This review describes opportunities to integrate AI throughout a trial's life cycle, including designing the trial, identifying eligible patients, obtaining informed consent, ascertaining physiological and clinical event outcomes, interpreting imaging, and analyzing or disseminating the results. Nevertheless, AI poses risks, including generating inaccurate results, amplifying biases against underrepresented groups, and violating patient privacy. Medical journals and regulators are developing new frameworks to evaluate AI research tools and the data they generate. Given the high-stakes role of randomized trials in medical decision making, AI must be integrated carefully and transparently to protect the validity of trial results., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Cunningham has received support from the KL2/Harvard Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training program and the American Heart Association (23CDA1052151); and has received consulting fees from Roche Diagnosis, Edgewise Therapeutics, KCK, and Occlutech. Dr Abraham has served as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics, Sensible Medical, Vectorious, V-Wave, and Zoll Respicardia. Dr Bhatt has received research grant support to his institution from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Institute on Aging, the American College of Cardiology Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and has received consulting fees from the Kinetix Group, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Dunn has served as a scientific advisor to Veri. Dr Felker has received research grants from NIH, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Daxor, Merck, Cytokinetics, and CSL-Behring; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Innolife, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, Sanofi, Regeneron, Myovant, Sequana, Windtree Therapeutics, and Whiteswell; and has served on clinical endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, Rocket Pharma, V-Wave, and LivaNova. Dr Jain has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIS Ventures, and Broadview Ventures outside of the submitted work. Dr Lindsell has received grants and contracts from the NIH, the U.S. Department of Defense, CDC, Biomeme, Novartis, bioMérieux, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Entegrion, and Endpoint Health, all outside of the submitted work; has obtained patents for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; has served on data safety monitoring boards unrelated to the current work; has held stock options in Bioscape Digital unrelated to the current work; and has served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. Mr Mace is an employee of Acorai AB; and has held stock interest in Abbott Laboratories. Dr Martyn has served as an advisor to or has received consulting fees from Fire1, Cleveland Clinic/American Well Joint Venture, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, NIRSense, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Apricity Robotics; and has received grant support from Ionis Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and the Heart Failure Society of America. Dr Shah is an employee of Meta, which had no role in this work or providing financial support. Dr Tison has received research grants from MyoKardia, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and is an advisor to Viz.ai and Prolaio. Dr Fakhouri is an employee of the Office of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; the views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr Krumholz has received options from Element Science and Identifeye; has received payments from F-Prime for advisory roles; has co-founded and held equity in Hugo Health, Refactor Health, and ENSIGHT-AI; and has been associated with research contracts through Yale University from Janssen, Kenvue, and Pfizer. Dr O’Connor has received consulting fees from Merck, Abiomed, and Zealcare. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Edgewise, Eidos, Gossamer, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, NIH NHLBI, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alexion, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, AnaCardio, Akros, and Valo. Drs Psotka and Fiuzat have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Heart failure and chronic kidney disease are common and clinically important conditions that regularly coexist. Electrophysiologic changes of advanced heart failure often result in abnormal conduction, causing dyssynchronous contraction, and development of ventricular arrhythmias, which can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. In the last 2 decades, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices have been developed to address these complications. However, when the coexisting chronic kidney disease is advanced, the associated pathophysiologic cardiovascular changes can alter the efficacy and safety of those interventions and complicate the management. This review explores the impact of comorbid advanced heart failure and advanced chronic kidney disease on the efficacy and safety of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy, the currently available evidence, and potential future directions., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Cleland has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Vifor, and Pharmacosmos; and has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking from Biopeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Vifor, and Pharmacosmos. Dr Abraham has received personal fees from Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Lip is a consultant and speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Anthos, no fees are received personally; is a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator and coprincipal investigator of the AFFIRMO project on multimorbidity in AF, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 899871. Dr Hatamizadeh has served as advisory board member for Horizon Therapeutics; and receives research support from Sarfez Pharmaceutical Company. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: For patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) and symptomatic heart failure (HF), randomized trials of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) have produced conflicting results., Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of M-TEER on hospitalization rates, and explore the effects of M-TEER on patients who did or did not have a history of recent HF hospitalizations before undergoing M-TEER., Methods: RESHAPE-HF2 (Randomized Investigation of the MitraClip Device in Heart Failure: 2nd Trial in Patients with Clinically Significant Functional Mitral Regurgitation) included patients with symptomatic HF and moderate to severe FMR (mean effective regurgitant orifice area 0.25 cm 2 ; 14% >0.40 cm 2 , 23% <0.20 cm 2 ) and showed that M-TEER reduced recurrent HF hospitalizations with and without the addition of cardiovascular (CV) death and improved quality of life. We now report the results of prespecified analyses on hospitalization rates and for the subgroup of patients (n = 333) with a HF hospitalization in the 12 months before randomization., Results: At 24 months, the time to first event of CV death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002), the rate of recurrent CV hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99; P = 0.046), the composite rate of recurrent CV hospitalizations and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; P = 0.017), and of recurrent CV death and CV hospitalizations (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58-0.99; P = 0.040), were all lower in the M-TEER group. The RR of recurrent hospitalizations for any cause was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.63-1.07; P = 0.15) for patients in the M-TEER group vs control group patients. Patients randomized to M-TEER lost fewer days due to death or HF hospitalization (13.9% [95% CI: 13.0%-14.8%] vs 17.4% [95% CI: 16.4%-18.4%] of follow-up time; P < 0.0001, and 1,067 vs 1,776 total days lost; P < 0.0001). Patients randomized to M-TEER also had better NYHA functional class at 30 days and at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up (P < 0.0001). A history of HF hospitalizations before randomization was associated with worse outcomes and greater benefit with M-TEER on the rate of the composite of recurrent HF hospitalizations and CV death (P interaction  = 0.03) and of recurrent HF hospitalizations within 24 months (P interaction  = 0.06)., Conclusions: These results indicate that a broader application of M-TEER in addition to optimal guideline-directed medical therapy should be considered among patients with symptomatic HF and moderate to severe FMR, particularly in those with a history of a recent hospitalization for HF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Prof Ponikowsaki has received a grant from Vifor Pharma; has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Servier, Novartis, Berlin Chemie, Bayer, Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Moderna, Pfizer, and Abbott Vascular; and has received fees for trial committee work from Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, and Moderna. Dr Friede has received payments to his institution from Abbott; has received grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), and European Commission; has received consulting fees from Actimed, Bayer, BMS, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Galapagos, Immunic, KyowaKirin, LivaNova, Minoryx, Novartis, RECARDIO, Relaxera, Roche, Servier, Viatris, and Vifor; has received payments from Fresenius Kabi and PINK gegen Brustkrebs; is a trial data monitoring committee member for Aslan, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Enanta, Galapagos, IQVIA, Novartis, PPD, Recordati, Roche, and VICO Therapeutics; and is a trial steering committee member for SCLBehring. Dr von Bardeleben has received an EchoCoreLab IIT grant from Clinical Trial Unit of UMG Göttingen; has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Jenscare, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Jenavalve, Jenscare, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Philips, Siemens; and is a trial committee member for Medtronic and Heart Valve Society (unpaid), and EU SHD Coalition (unpaid). Dr Butler has received consulting fees from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AskBio, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardiocell, Cardior, Cardiorem, CSL Bearing, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Daxor, Edwards Lifesciences, Element Science, Faraday, Foundry, G3P, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Ionis, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Occlutech, Owkin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Pfize, Prolaio, Regeneron, Renibus, Roche, Salamandra, Sanofi, SC Pharma, Secretome, Sequana, SQ Innovation, Tenex, Tricog, Ultromics, Vifor, and Zoll; and has received honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, AstraZeneca, Impulse Dynamics, and Vifor. Dr Khan has participated in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bayer. Dr Ferrari has received honoraria and support for attending meetings from Servier, Merck Serono, Bayer, Lupin, and Sunpharma. Dr Abraham has received payments from Abbott; has received grants from National Institutes of Health 1 UG3 / UH3 HL140144-01; has received consulting fees from Zoll Respicardia; has received honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott; and is an advisory board member for Sensible Medical, WhiteSwell, AquaPass, Cordio Medical, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Auricchio has received consulting fees and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Microport CRM, Philips, Xspline, and Abbott. Dr Bayes-Genis has lectured and/or participated in advisory boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. Dr Cleland has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Vifor, British Heart Foundation, and Pharmacosmos; has received consulting fees from Pharmacosmos, CSL-Vifor, and Biopeutics; and has received honoraria from Pharmacosmos. Dr Filippatos has received honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and Novartis; has served on the trial committee boards for Bayer, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, Amgen, Servier, Impulse Dynamics, Cardior, and Novo Nordisk; and has served on the boards of the Heart Failure Association and JACC Heart Failure. Dr Gustafsson has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott, Bayer, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; has participated on the trial committee board of AdJuCor; and has served on the board of the Heart Failure Association. Dr Haverkamp has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Bayer and AstraZeneca. Dr Kelm has received grants or contracts from Microvision Medical Holding B.V., Edwards Lifesciences, Mars Scientific Advisory Council, Abiomed Europe GmbH, B. Braun Melsungen AG, DFG SFB 1116, EU Horizon 2020, and Daiichi-Sankyo Deutschland GmbH; and has received payment or honoraria from Bayer Vital GmbH, Abiomed Europe GmbH, AstraZeneca, Amarin GmbH, and CTI congress GmbH. Dr Landmesser has received grants from Abbott and Novartis; and has received consulting fees and honoraria from Abbott. Dr Maggioni has participated on trial committee boards for Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Metra has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural Heart, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche Diagnostics, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer. Dr Petrie has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, SQ Innovations, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Pharmacosmos; has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Akero, Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, AnaCardio, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corteria, FIRE-1, Biosensors, REPRIEVE, Corvia, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Bayer, Horizon Therapeutics, Takeda, Cardiorentis, Pharmacosmos, Roche Pharma, Siemens, Eli Lilly, Vifor, New Amsterdam, Moderna, Teikoku, LIB Therapeutics, and 3R Lifesciences; and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Teikoku. Dr Rassaf has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and CVRxInc; and has pending patent applications regarding amelioration and treatment of infarct damage (W02023079141A2), blood pressure lowering composition (EP3646861A1), and Bnip3 peptides for the treatment of reperfusion injury (C=2021015130A2). Dr Ruschitzka has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers in the last 3 years; the Department of Cardiology (University Hospital of Zurich/University of Zurich) has received research, educational, and/or travel grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, At the Limits Ltd., Bayer, Berlin Heart, B. Braun, Biosense Webster, Biosensors Europe AG, Biotronik, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bracco, Cardinal Health Switzerland, Concept Medical, Corteria, CSL, Daiichi Sankyo, Diatools AG, Edwards Lifesciences, Guidant Europe NV (BS), Hamilton Health Sciences, IHF, Innosuisse, Johnson/Johnson, Kaneka Corporation, Kantar, Kiniksa, Labormedizinisches Zentrum, MedAlliance, Medical Education Global Solutions, Medtronic, MicroPort, MSD, Mundipharma Medical Company, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Quintiles Switzerland Sarl, Recor Medical, Roche Diagnostics, Roche Pharma, Sahajanand IN, Sanofi, Sarstedt AG, Servier, SIS Medical, Sorin CRM SAS, SSS International Clinical Research, Stromal, Terumo Deutschland, Trama Solutions, V-Wave, Vascular Medical, Vifor, Wissens Plus, and ZOLL. Dr Schäfer has received grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and personal fees for consultancies, trial committee work, and/or lectures from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Polares Medical. Dr Schulze has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Abiomed Inc, Edwards Lifesciences Inc, Cytosorb Inc, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi- Sankyo, Novartis, Actelion, Roche, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos, Medtronic, Thoratec, Boehringer Ingelheim, HeartWare, Coronus, Abbott, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, Abiomed, and DGK, and trial committee work for Abbott, Abiomed. Dr Spargias has received fees for proctoring for Abbott Vascular. Dr Vahanian has participated on a data safety monitoring board for Edwards Lifesciences, VenusTech, and Mayo Clinic. Dr Zamorano has received personal payments or honoraria from Viatris, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr Zeiher has received grants or contracts from or served on scientific advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Koehler has received grants for Project 5G-MedCamp from the German Federal Ministry of Economics and climate protection (BMWK) and grants for projects RESKRIVER and 6 G Health; consulting fees and/or payments or honoraria from BIOTRONIK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Germany GmbH, Novartis Germany (till 2022), and AMGEN Germany (in 2021). Dr Lainscak has received a grant from Slovenian Research Agency; and has received honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Drs Mezilis and Theofilogiannakos have received support from Abbott for attending meetings. Dr Chrissoheris has received fees for proctoring for Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Papadopoulos has received consulting fees and honoraria from GE Healthcare. Dr Smolka has received fees for proctoring for Abbott Vascular. Dr Wojakowski has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Reczuch has received honoraria for lectures from Abbott. Dr Pinto has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Servier, Vifor, and Zydus; and participated on advisory boards for Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Adamo has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Ruf has received fees proctoring and consulting for Abbott Laboratories and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hasenfuß has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Corvia, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier; and has served on trial committees for AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Corvia (no honoraria), Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Schillinger has received consulting and lecture fees and travel expenses from Abbott Vascular. Dr Anker has received grants and personal fees from Vifor and Abbott Vascular; has received personal fees for consultancies, trial committee work, and/or lectures from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bioventrix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cardior, Cordio, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Farraday Pharmaceuticals, GSK, HeartKinetics, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Occlutech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Relaxera, Repairon, Scirent, Sensible Medical, Servier, Vectorious, and V-Wave; and is named as coinventor of two patent applications regarding MR-proANP (DE 102007010834 & DE 102007022367), but he does not benefit personally from the related issued patents. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trials evaluating implantable hemodynamic monitors to manage patients with heart failure (HF) have shown reductions in HF hospitalizations but not mortality. Prior meta-analyses assessing mortality have been limited in construct because of an absence of patient-level data, short-term follow-up duration, and evaluation across the combined spectrum of ejection fractions., Objectives: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether management with implantable hemodynamic monitors reduces mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to confirm the effect of hemodynamic-monitoring guided management on HF hospitalization reduction reported in previous studies., Methods: The patient-level pooled meta-analysis used 3 randomized studies (GUIDE-HF [Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure], CHAMPION [CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients], and LAPTOP-HF [Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring to Optimize Heart Failure Therapy]) of implantable hemodynamic monitors (2 measuring pulmonary artery pressures and 1 measuring left atrial pressure) to assess the effect on all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations., Results: A total of 1,350 patients with HFrEF were included. Hemodynamic-monitoring guided management significantly reduced overall mortality with an HR of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.99); P = 0.043. HF hospitalizations were significantly reduced with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55-0.76); P < 0.0001., Conclusions: Management of patients with HFrEF using an implantable hemodynamic monitor significantly reduces both mortality and HF hospitalizations. The reduction in HF hospitalizations is seen early in the first year of monitoring and mortality benefits occur after the first year., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Abbott (Abbott Park, Illinois) funded the CHAMPION, LAPTOP-HF, and GUIDE-HF studies. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Abbott, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Axon, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merck, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious, and VWave; and has received grants from AstraZeneca. Dr Costanzo is a consultant for Abbott. Dr Zile has received research funding from Novartis; and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronix, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Ducharme has received consulting fees from Abbott, Akcea, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Corvia, Eidos, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr Troughton has received research grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand; has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, American Regent, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received honoraria payments from Roche Diagnostics. Drs Maisel and Paul are consultants for Abbott. Dr Mehra is a consultant for Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, Janssen, Broadview Ventures, Mesoblast, and Baim Institute for Clinical Research; is a consultant for Abbott; has served on the Clinical Events Committee for GUIDE-HF through the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and has stock in NuPulseCV, Leviticus, Transmedics, and FineHeart. Dr Sears has received research grants from Medtronic and Zoll; is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Milestone Pharmaceutical; and has received personal fees from Medtronic and Zoll. Dr Smart has received research grants from Amgen; and is a consultant for Abbott. Dr Johnson, Mr Henderson, and Dr Adamson are full-time employees and shareholders for Abbott. Dr Desai has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and is a consultant for Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Axon Therapeutics, Avidity, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, Roche, and Verily. Dr Abraham has received personal fees from Zoll Respicardia, Cardionomic, WhiteSwell, AquaPass, Cordio, Vectorious, Impulse Dynamics, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has personal equity in V-Wave Medica. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Although malnutrition is associated with poor prognosis in several diseases, its prognostic impact in patients with heart failure (HF) and secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) is not understood., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and impact of malnutrition in HF patients with severe SMR randomized to transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with the MitraClip plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs GDMT alone in the COAPT trial., Methods: Baseline malnutrition risk was calculated using the validated geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) score. Patients were categorized as having "malnutrition" (GNRI ≤98) vs "no malnutrition" (GNRI >98). Outcomes were assessed through 4 years. The primary endpoint of interest was all-cause mortality., Results: Among 552 patients, median baseline GNRI was 109 (IQR: 101-116); 94 (17.0%) had malnutrition. All-cause mortality at 4 years was greater in patients with vs those without malnutrition (68.3% vs 52.8%; P = 0.001). Using multivariable analysis, both baseline malnutrition (adjusted-HR [adj-HR]: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.03-1.82; P = 0.03) and randomization to TEER plus GDMT compared with GDMT alone (adj-HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.51-0.82; P = 0.0003) were independent predictors of 4-year mortality. In contrast, GNRI was unrelated to the 4-year rate of heart failure hospitalization (HFH), although TEER treatment reduced HFH (adj-HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.36-0.56). The reductions in death (adj-P interaction  = 0.46) and HFH (adj-P interaction  = 0.67) with TEER were consistent in patients with and without malnutrition., Conclusions: Malnutrition was present in 1 of 6 patients with HF and severe SMR enrolled in COAPT and was independently associated with increased 4-year mortality (but not HFH). TEER reduced mortality and HFH in patients with and without malnutrition. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The COAPT trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr Scotti has served as a consultant for and has received consulting fees from NeoChord Inc. Dr Coisne has served as a consultant for Abbott; and has received speaker fees from Abbott and GE Healthcare. Dr Granada is the Co-Founder of Cephea Valve Technologies (Abbott); and is the CEO of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr Kar has received grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and 4TECH; has been a consultant for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and 4TECH; and holds stock options in 4TECH. Dr Lim has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia, Edwards, Medtronic, Trisol, and V Wave; and has received consultant fees from Ancora, Philips, Valgen, and Venus. Dr Cohen has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Lindenfeld has received research grant support from AstraZeneca; and has received consulting income from Abbott Vascular, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Cordio, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Medtronic, Vascular Dynamics, and V-Wave. Dr Abraham has received research grant support from the National Institutes of Health – National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (National Institutes of Health 1 UG3/UH3 HL140144-01, 08/01/18 - 07/31/22, “Impact of Low Flow Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy on Hospital Readmission/Mortality in Patients with Heart Failure and Central Sleep Apnea [LOFT-HF])”; has received consulting income from Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Zoll Respicardia; has received speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics; and has received salary support from V-Wave Medical. Dr Mack has served as co-primary investigator for the PARTNER trial for Edwards Lifesciences and the COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic. Dr Asch has received institutional contracts with Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Mitralign, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and Livanova. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, and Millennia Biopharma; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave; and his daughter is an employee at Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) on the rate and prognostic impact of hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe secondary mitral regurgitation is unknown., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of the MitraClip percutaneous edge-to edge repair system on fatal and nonfatal hospitalizations and their relationship with mortality in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial., Methods: Patients with HF (n = 614) with severe secondary mitral regurgitation were randomized to TEER plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. Hospitalizations were classified as fatal if death occurred during that hospitalization or nonfatal if the patient was discharged alive., Results: At 2 years, TEER treatment, compared with GDMT alone, resulted in lower time-to-first-event rates of any heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (34.8% vs 56.4%; HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.66) and fatal HFH (6.5% vs 12.6%; HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26-0.85). TEER also resulted in lower rates of all-cause nonfatal and fatal hospitalizations. During the 2-year follow-up period, patients who underwent TEER spent an average of 2 more months alive and out of the hospital than did patients treated with GDMT alone (581 ± 27 days vs 519 ± 26 days; P = 0.002). All HFHs (adjusted HR: 6.37; 95% CI: 4.63-8.78) and nonfatal HFHs (adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.27-2.49) were consistently independently associated with increased 2-year mortality in both the TEER and GDMT groups (P interaction  = 0.34 and 0.39, respectively)., Conclusions: In the COAPT trial, compared with GDMT alone, patients with HF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation undergoing TEER with the percutaneous edge-to edge repair system had lower 2-year rates of fatal and nonfatal all-cause hospitalizations and HFH and spent more time alive and out of the hospital. HFHs were strongly associated with mortality, irrespective of treatment. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The COAPT trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr Giustino has received consulting fees (Advisory Board) from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr Kapadia has received stock options from Navigate Cardiac Structures, Inc. Dr Kar has received consulting fees and served on the advisory board of Boston Scientific; has received consulting fees/stock equity from Valcare; and has received consulting fees from W.L. Gore and Medtronic. Dr Abraham has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr Lindenfeld has received research grant support from AstraZeneca; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and V-Wave. Dr Lim has received research grant support from Abbott, Edwards, Medtronic, and Gore; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Edwards, Keystone Heart, Pipeline, Siemens, Valgen, and Venus; has served on the advisory boards of Ancora and Venus; and holds equity in 510Kardiac and Venus. Dr Grayburn has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, and 4C Medical; and has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, and Neochord. Dr Cohen has received research grant support from Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Asch has institutional contracts with Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Mitralign, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and Livanova. Dr Mack has served as coprimary investigator of the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and of COAPT trial for Abbott; and served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, Gore, and Amgen; and has received equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, has received research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, and V-wave; and his daughter is an employee at Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hamo has received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number T32 HL007024). Dr Butler has served as a consultant to Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Cures, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, Sequanna, and Vifor. Dr Fonarow has served as a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Relypsa, and Roche Diagnostics; has speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and has participated on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Novartis, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiora, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Eisai, Ionis, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Prothena, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shifamed, Tenax, and United Therapeutics. Dr Lindenfeld has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Abbott, Allegiant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave; and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Volumetrix, and Sensible Medical. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardionomic, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Respicardia, Sensible Medical, and Vectorious; and has received salary support from V-Wave Medical. Dr Teerlink has received research grants and/or consulting fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, EBR Systems, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr McMurray has had payments to his employer, Glasgow University, for his work on clinical trials, consulting and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and has received personal payments from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Ionis, Lupin, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Windtree, and Arena. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships related to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The regulatory landscape for device-based heart failure (HF) therapies has seen a major shift in the last 7 years. In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released guidance for early feasibility and first-in-human studies, thereby encouraging device innovation, and in 2016 the U.S. Congress authorized the Breakthrough Devices Program to expedite access for Americans to innovative devices indicated for diagnosis and treatment of serious illnesses, such as HF. Since December 2016, there has been an increase in the number of HF devices for which manufacturers are seeking approval through the breakthrough designation pathway. This has led to a rapid uptake in the development and evaluation of device-based HF therapies. This article reviews the current and future landscape of device therapies for chronic HF and associated comorbidities and the regulatory environment that is driving current and future innovation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Fudim has received support from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) grant K23HL151744, American Heart Association grant 20IPA35310955, the Mario Family Award, the Duke Chair’s Award, the Translating Duke Health Award, Bayer, and BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, AxonTherapies, CVRx, Daxor, Edwards LifeSciences, Galvani, and NXT Biomedical. Dr Abraham has received personal fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study; has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and Respicardia; has received salary support from V-Wave Medical; and has received research support from the NHLBI, all for studies performed within the heart failure arena. Dr von Bardeleben has received grants from Abbott Structural Heart. Dr Lindenfeld has received grant funding from AstraZeneca, Volumetrix, and Sensible Medical; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards LifeSciences, Impulse Dynamics, and V-Wave. Dr Ponikowski has received consulting fees and speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Berlin Chemie, Bayer, Pfizer, Cibiem, Coridea, Impulse Dynamics, Renal Guard Solutions, BMS, and Abbott Vascular; is a co-principal investigator for the RESHAPE-HF trial for AbbottVascular; and has received a research grant from Vifor Pharma. Dr Sievert has served as a consultant for 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, Cardiac Dimensions, Celonova, Cibiem, CGuard, Comed BV, Contego, CVRx, Edwards, Endologix, Hemoteq, InspireMD, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mitralign, Nuomao Medtech, Occlutech, pfm Medical, Recor, Renal Guard, Rox Medical, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vivasure Medical, Venus, and Veryan. Dr Stone has received speaker or other honoraria from Cook, Terumo, QOOL Therapeutics, and Orchestra Biomed; has served as a consultant for Valfix, TherOx, Cardiomech, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, and Matrizyme; and holds equity in or has options from Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. Dr Anker has received grants from Vifor Int and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Vifor, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Servier, Abbott, Cardiac Dimensions, Impulse Dynamics, V-Wave, and Occlutech. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adrenomed, American Regent, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, Cardiac Dimension, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Occlutech, Roche, and Vifor. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) resulted in fewer heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and lower mortality at 24 months in patients with heart failure (HF) with mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to left ventricular dysfunction compared with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone., Objectives: This study determined if these benefits persisted to 36 months and if control subjects who were allowed to cross over at 24 months derived similar benefit., Methods: This study randomized 614 patients with HF with moderate-to-severe or severe secondary MR, who remained symptomatic despite maximally tolerated GDMT, to TMVr plus GDMT versus GDMT alone. The primary effectiveness endpoint was all HFHs through 24-month follow-up. Patients have now been followed for 36 months., Results: The annualized rates of HFHs per patient-year were 35.5% with TMVr and 68.8% with GDMT alone (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 0.63; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) = 3.0; 95% CI: 2.4 to 4.0). Mortality occurred in 42.8% of the device group versus 55.5% of control group (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.85; p = 0.001; NNT = 7.9; 95% CI: 4.6 to 26.1). Patients who underwent TMVr also had sustained 3-year improvements in MR severity, quality-of-life measures, and functional capacity. Among 58 patients assigned to GDMT alone who crossed over and were treated with TMVr, the subsequent composite rate of mortality or HFH was reduced compared with those who continued on GDMT alone (adjusted HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.78; p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Among patients with HF and moderate-to-severe or severe secondary MR who remained symptomatic despite GDMT, TMVr was safe, provided a durable reduction in MR, reduced the rate of HFH, and improved survival, quality of life, and functional capacity compared with GDMT alone through 36 months. Surviving patients who crossed over to device treatment had a prognosis comparable to those originally assigned to transcatheter therapy. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by Abbott. Dr. Mack has received grant support from Abbott. Dr. Lindenfeld has received grant support from AstraZeneca; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, Boehringer Ingelheim, VoluMetrix, and V-Wave. Dr. Abraham has received personal fees from Abbott; has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Respicardia, Sensible Medical, CVRx, and Impulse Dynamics; and has received salary support from V-Wave Medical, all for work done in the field of heart failure. Dr. Kar has received grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and 4TECH; has been a consultant for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and 4TECH; and holds stock options in 4TECH. Dr. Lim has received institutional grant support from Abbott. Dr. Grayburn has received grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, W.L. Gore, Neochord, and CardioValve; and has received personal fees from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, W.L. Gore, and 4C Medical. Dr. Rinaldi has been a consultant and speaker for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences; has taught courses and has been a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has been a member of the advisory board and received a research grant for Boston Scientific. Dr. Sarembock has been a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr. Rogers has received a research grant and physician training services from and has been a member of the advisory board for Abbott. Dr. Marx has received honorarium for membership in CEC from the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr. Cohen has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Weissman has received grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Stone has been a speaker for and has received honoraria from Cook, Terumo, QOOL Therapeutics, and Orchestra Biomed; has been a consultant for Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, Matrizyme, and Cardiomech; and holds equity/options from Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pulmonary hypertension worsens prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) and secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR)., Objectives: This study sought to determine whether baseline pulmonary hypertension influences outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) in patients with HF with SMR., Methods: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, 614 patients with HF with moderate-to-severe or severe SMR were randomized to TMVr with the MitraClip plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (n = 302) versus GDMT alone (n = 312). Baseline pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) estimated from echocardiography was categorized as substantially increased (≥50 mm Hg) versus not substantially increased (<50 mm Hg)., Results: Among 528 patients, 184 (82 TMVr, 102 GDMT) had PASP of ≥50 mm Hg (mean: 59.1 ± 8.8 mm Hg) and 344 (171 TMVr, 173 GDMT) had PASP of <50 mm Hg (mean: 36.3 ± 8.1 mm Hg). Patients with PASP of ≥50 mm Hg had higher 2-year rates of death or HF hospitalization (HFH) compared to those with PASP of <50 mm Hg (68.8% vs. 49.1%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.52; 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 1.97; p = 0.002). Rates of death or HFH were reduced by TMVr versus GDMT alone, irrespective of baseline PASP (p interaction  = 0.45). TMVr reduced PASP from baseline to 30 days to a greater than GDMT alone (adjusted least squares mean: -4.0 vs. -0.9 mm Hg; p = 0.006), a change that was associated with reduced risk of death or HFH between 30 days and 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.91 per -5 mm Hg PASP; 95% confidence interval: 0.86 to 0.96; p = 0.0009)., Conclusions: Elevated PASP is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with HF with severe SMR. TMVr with the MitraClip reduced 30-day PASP and 2-year rates of death or HFH compared with GDMT alone, irrespective of PASP., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures The COAPT trial was funded by Abbott. Drs. Ben-Yehuda, Shahim, and Redfors are employees of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation which has received research grants in connection with the COAPT trial from Abbott; they have no personal financial relationships with Abbott. Dr. Hahn has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific Corporation, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; has been a consultant for Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore & Associates, Medtronic, Navigate, and Philips Healthcare; has received nonfinancial support from 3mensio; has equity with Navigate; and is the chief scientific officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Drs. Asch and Weissman are the director and associate director, respectively, of an academic echocardiography core laboratory with institutional contracts with Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and Livanova. Dr. Grayburn has received research grant support from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, W.L. Gore, and Boston Scientific; has consulted for Abbott, Edwards, Medtronic, and Neochord; and has imaging core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Neochord, W.L. Gore, and Cardiovalve. Dr. Kar has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Mitralign; and has received consulting income from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Lim has received research grant support and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr. Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Edwards Lifesciences, Relypsa, Boehringer Ingelheim, V-Wave, CVRx, and Impulse Dynamics; and has received research grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Abraham has received research grant support from Abbott; and has received consulting fees from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mack has served as coprincipal investigator for the Edwards Lifesciences–sponsored PARTNER 3 trial and the Abbott-sponsored COAPT trial; and has served as study chairman for the Medtronic-sponsored APOLLO trial. Dr. Stone has received speaker honoraria from Cook and Terumo; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, and Matrizyme; and owns equity/options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Psotka has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Windtree; and has received grant support from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Abraham has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, and Respicardia; has received salary support from V-Wave; and has received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Filippatos has received consulting income from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor; and has received lecture fees from Merck. Dr. Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, V-Wave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Ahmad has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. Dr. Bhatt has received consulting fees from Sanofi Pasteur; and participates in clinical endpoint committees for the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Medtronic, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Servier; and has received research grants from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Servier. Dr. Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, Amgen, Merck, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Relypsa, V-Wave, Myokardia, Innolife, EBR Systems, Arena, Abbott, Sphingotec, Roche Diagnostics, Alnylam, LivaNova, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and scPharmaceuticals. Dr. Januzzi is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; has received grant support from Applied Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Abbott Diagnostics; has received consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Takeda. Dr. Kitzman has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, DCRI, and Corvia; has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has stock in Gilead. Dr. Lewis has received consulting fees from Novartis; and has received institutional research grant support from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray has received financial support from Bayer, Cardiorentis, Amgen, Oxford University, Theracos, Abbvie, DalCor, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Vifor-Fresenius, Kidney Research UK, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Mentz has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, InnoLife, Luitpold/American Reagent, Novartis, Otsuka, ResMed, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health grants U01HL125511-01A1 and R01AG045551-01A1. Dr. Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received consulting fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, and Cardiac Dimensions. Dr. Teerlink has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health; and has received research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and scPharmaceuticals. Dr. Vaduganathan is supported by the KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training award from Harvard Catalyst (NIH/NCATS Award UL 1TR002541); and has served on Advisory Boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Vardeny has received consulting fees from Novartis; and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Whellan has received grant support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01AG045551). Dr. Wittes reports that the company for which she works, Statistics Collaborative, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for heart failure. Dr. Anker has received clinical trial–related fees from Abbott Vascular, Servier, Vifor, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Thermo Fisher, Respicardia, and Novartis. Dr. O’Connor has received research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; has been a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Windtree, and Neurotronik; and is a co-owner of Biscardia. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The presence of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) may affect prognosis in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR)., Objectives: This study sought to determine the impact of TR on outcomes in patients with heart failure and severe secondary MR randomized to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial., Methods: A total of 614 patients with symptomatic heart failure with moderate to severe (3+) or severe (4+) secondary MR were randomized to maximally tolerated GDMT plus MitraClip or GDMT alone; 599 had core laboratory evaluable echocardiograms. Patients were divided into 2 groups by baseline TR severity: none/trace/mild TR (≤Mild TR) (n = 501 [83.6%]) and moderate/severe TR (≥Mod TR) (n = 98 [16.4%]). Two-year composite endpoints of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and the individual endpoints were analyzed., Results: Patients with ≥Mod TR were more likely to be New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (p < 0.0001) and have a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of ≥8 (p < 0.0001), anemia (p = 0.02), chronic kidney disease (p = 0.003), and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (p = 0.02) than those with ≤Mild TR. Patients with ≥Mod TR had more severe MR (p = 0.0005) despite smaller left ventricular volumes (p = 0.005) and higher right ventricular systolic pressure (p < 0.0001). At 2 years, the composite rate of death or HFH was higher in patients with ≥Mod TR compared with ≤Mild TR treated with GDMT alone (83.0% vs. 64.3%; hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.45; p = 0.001) but not following MitraClip (48.2% vs. 44.0%; hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.84; p = 0.59). Rates of death or HFH, as well as death and HFH alone, were reduced by MitraClip compared with GDMT, irrespective of baseline TR grade (p interaction  = 0.16, 0.29, and 0.21 respectively)., Conclusions: Patients with severe secondary MR who also had ≥Mod TR had worse clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and worse clinical outcomes compared to those with ≤Mild TR. Within the COAPT trial, MitraClip improved outcomes in patients with and without ≥Mod TR severity compared with GDMT alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip results in marked clinical improvement in some but not all patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and heart failure (HF)., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical predictors of a major response to treatment in the COAPT trial., Methods: Patients with HF and severe MR who were symptomatic on maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) were randomly assigned to MitraClip plus GDMT or GDMT alone. Super-responders were defined as those alive without HF hospitalization and with ≥20-point improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score at 12 months. Responders were defined as those alive without HF hospitalization and with a 5 to <20-point KCCQ-OS improvement at 12 months. Nonresponders were those who either died, were hospitalized for HF, or had <5-point improvement in KCCQ-OS at 12 months., Results: Among 614 enrolled patients, 41 (6.7%) had missing KCCQ-OS data and could not be classified. At 12 months, there were 79 super-responders (27.2%), 55 responders (19.0%), and 156 nonresponders (53.8%) in the MitraClip arm compared with 29 super-responders (10.2%), 46 responders (16.3%), and 208 nonresponders (73.5%) in the GDMT-alone arm (overall p < 0.0001). Independent baseline predictors of clinical responder status were lower serum creatinine and KCCQ-OS scores and treatment assignment to MitraClip. MR grade and estimated right ventricular systolic pressure at 30 days were improved to a greater degree in super-responders and responders but not in nonresponders., Conclusions: Baseline predictors of clinical super-responders in patients with HF and severe secondary MR in the COAPT trial were lower serum creatinine, KCCQ-OS score and MitraClip treatment. Improved MR severity and reduced right ventricular systolic pressure at 30 days are associated with a long-term favorable clinical response after transcatheter mitral valve repair. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Objectives: The BeAT-HF (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure) trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial; subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either BAT plus optimal medical management (BAT group) or optimal medical management alone (control group)., Methods: Four patient cohorts were created from 408 randomized patients with HFrEF using the following enrollment criteria: current New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or functional class II (patients who had a recent history of NYHA functional class III); ejection fraction ≤35%; stable medical management for ≥4 weeks; and no Class I indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Effectiveness endpoints were the change from baseline to 6 months in 6-min hall walk distance (6MHW), Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire quality-of-life (QOL) score, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The safety endpoint included the major adverse neurological or cardiovascular system or procedure-related event rate (MANCE)., Results: Results from, timeline and rationale for, cohorts A, B, and C are presented in detail in the text. Cohort D, which represented the intended use population that reflected the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved instructions for use (enrollment criteria plus NT-proBNP <1,600 pg/ml), consisted of 245 patients followed-up for 6 months (120 in the BAT group and 125 in the control group). BAT was safe and significantly improved QOL, 6MHW, and NT-proBNP. In the BAT group versus the control group, QOL score decreased (Δ = -14.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -19 to -9; p < 0.001), 6MHW distance increased (Δ = 60 m; 95% CI: 40 to 80 m; p < 0.001), NT-proBNP decreased (Δ = -25%; 95% CI: -38% to -9%; p = 0.004), and the MANCE free rate was 97% (95% CI: 93% to 100%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: BAT was safe and significantly improved QOL, exercise capacity, and NT-proBNP. (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure [BeAT-HF]; NCT02627196)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with the MitraClip rapidly improved health status and reduced the long-term risks for death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine if early health status changes were associated with long-term clinical outcomes in the COAPT population., Methods: The association between change in health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score [KCCQ-OS]) from baseline to 1 month and the composite rate of death or HF hospitalization between 1 month and 2 years in the COAPT trial were evaluated, and whether treatment (TMVr or GDMT alone) modified this association was tested., Results: Among 551 patients with HF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation who were alive at 1 month, those randomized to TMVr were more likely than those randomized to GDMT alone to achieve a ≥10-point improvement in KCCQ-OS from baseline to 1 month (TMVr, 58%; GDMT alone, 26%). Early improvement in KCCQ-OS was inversely associated with the risk for death or HF hospitalization between 1 month and 2 years (p < 0.001). When analyzed as a continuous variable, a 10-point increase in KCCQ-OS was associated with a 14% lower risk for death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 0.92; p < 0.001), with no significant interaction with treatment group (p interaction  = 0.17). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, the association between change in KCCQ-OS and outcomes was strengthened (hazard ratio: 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.86; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with HF and severe secondary mitral regurgitation, a short-term change in disease-specific health status was strongly associated with the subsequent long-term risk for death or HF hospitalization. These findings reinforce the prognostic utility of serial KCCQ-OS assessments to identify patients at risk for poor long-term clinical outcomes in this population. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial]; NCT01626079)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial among patients with heart failure (HF) and moderate-to-severe (3+) or severe (4+) secondary mitral regurgitation, patients treated with transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) through leaflet approximation had reduced rates of HF hospitalization and mortality compared with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the echocardiographic patient qualification process for the COAPT trial, baseline echocardiographic characteristics, changes over time, and the interaction between treatment group and echocardiographic parameters on clinical outcomes., Methods: A novel echocardiographic algorithm was implemented for grading mitral regurgitation severity during the screening process. Standardized echocardiograms were obtained at baseline and during regular follow-up intervals through 2 years, and were analyzed by a core laboratory., Results: A total of 614 patients were randomized to TMVr plus maximally tolerated GDMT or GDMT alone. Mean baseline left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was 31.3 ± 9.3%, LV end-diastolic volume was 192.7 ± 71 ml, and effective regurgitant orifice area was 0.41 ± 0.15 cm 2 . The beneficial effect of TMVr compared with GDMT alone was consistent in all echocardiographic subgroups, independent of the severity of LV dysfunction, LV dilatation, pulmonary hypertension, severity of tricuspid regurgitation, or individual mitral regurgitation characteristics. The LV ejection fraction decreased and the LV volumes progressively increased in both groups during follow-up, although less after TMVr (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: HF patients in the COAPT trial with 3+ or 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation, selected using strict echocardiographic criteria, benefitted from TMVr with reduced 2-year rates of death and HF hospitalization. Strict application of these echocardiographic criteria should enable the COAPT results to be translated to clinical practice. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) led to reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and improved survival in patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) on maximally-tolerated medical therapy. Given the advanced age and comorbidities of these patients, improvement in health status is also an important treatment goal., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to understand the health status outcomes of patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR treated with TMVr versus standard care., Methods: The COAPT trial randomized patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR to TMVr (n = 302) or standard care (n = 312). Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey. The primary health status endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS; range 0 to 100; higher = better; minimum clinically important difference = 5 points)., Results: At baseline, patients had substantially impaired health status (mean KCCQ-OS 52.4 ± 23.0). While health status was unchanged over time in the standard care arm, patients randomized to TMVr demonstrated substantial improvement in the KCCQ-OS at 1 month (mean between-group difference 15.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.3 to 19.5 points), with only slight attenuation of this benefit through 24 months (mean between-group difference 12.8 points; 95% CI: 7.5 to 18.2 points). At 24 months, 36.4% of TMVr patients were alive with a moderately large (≥10-point) improvement versus 16.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001), for a number needed to treat of 5.1 patients (95% CI: 3.6 to 8.7 patients). TMVr patients also reported better generic health status at each timepoint (24-month mean difference in SF-36 summary scores: physical 3.6 points; 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.8 points; mental 3.6 points; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.4 points)., Conclusions: Among patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR receiving maximally-tolerated medical therapy, edge-to-edge TMVr resulted in substantial early and sustained health status improvement compared with medical therapy alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heart failure (HF) trials initiated in the last century highlighted many differences between men and women. Of particular concern was undertreatment of women compared with men, but much has changed during the past 20 years., Objectives: This study sought to identify these changes, which may give a new perspective on the management of, and outcomes in, women with HF., Methods: The study analyzed 12,058 men and 3,357 women enrolled in 2 large HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials with near identical inclusion and exclusion criteria and the same principal outcomes. Outcomes were adjusted for other prognostic variables including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide., Results: Women were older and more often obese than men were, had slightly higher systolic blood pressure and heart rate, and were less likely to have most comorbidities, except hypertension. Women had more symptoms and signs (e.g., pedal edema 23.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.0001) and worse quality of life-median Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score 71.3 (interquartile range: 53.4 to 86.5) versus 81.3 (interquartile range: 65.1 to 92.7; p < 0.0001)-despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. However, women had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.62 to 0.74; p < 0.001) and risk of HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 0.89; p < 0.001). Diuretics and anticoagulants were underutilized in women. Device therapy was underused in both men and women, but more so in women (e.g., defibrillator 8.6% vs. 16.6%; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Although women with HFrEF live longer than men, their additional years of life are of poorer quality, with greater self-reported psychological and physical disability. The explanation for this different sex-related experience of HFrEF is unknown as is whether physicians recognize it. Women continue to receive suboptimal treatment, compared with men, with no obvious explanation for this shortfall., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cross correlation analysis (CCA) using tissue Doppler imaging has been shown to be associated with outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) with wide QRS. However, its significance in patients with narrow QRS treated with CRT is unknown., Objectives: The aim of the current study was to investigate the association of mechanical activation delay by CCA with study outcome in patients with HF enrolled in the EchoCRT trial., Methods: Baseline CCA could be performed from tissue Doppler imaging in the apical views in 807 of 809 (99.7%) enrolled patients, and 6-month follow-up could be performed in 610 of 635 (96%) patients with available echocardiograms. Patients with a pre-specified maximal activation delay ≥35 ms were considered to have significant delay. The study outcome was HF hospitalization or death., Results: Of 807 patients, 375 (46%) did not have delayed mechanical activation at baseline by CCA. Patients without delayed mechanical activation who were randomized to CRT-On compared with CRT-Off had an increased risk of poor outcome (hazard ratio: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 2.55; p = 0.01) with a significant interaction term (p = 0.04) between delayed mechanical activation and device randomization for the endpoint. Among patients with paired baseline and follow-up data with no events before 6-month follow-up (n = 541), new-onset delayed mechanical activation in the CRT-On group showed a significant increase in unfavorable events (hazard ratio: 3.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 12.14; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: In the EchoCRT population, absence of delayed mechanical activation by CCA was significantly associated with poor outcomes, possibly due to the onset of new delayed mechanical activation with CRT pacing. (Echocardiography Guided Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [EchoCRT] Trial; NCT00683696)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The current heart failure clinical trial environment is strained by increasing complexity and cost, regulatory requirements, competing demands on stakeholders, implementation challenges, and decreasing patient and investigator participation. To begin the process of developing potentially effective strategies and tactics, stakeholders including patients; investigators; academic leaders; pharmaceutical and device industry representatives; society representatives; third-party payers; and government representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services convened in March of 2017. This paper summarizes the discussions, outlines current challenges and actionable opportunities, and makes targeted recommendations to achieve the goals of improving efficiency in clinical trials and speeding the development of effective heart failure therapies, including the formation of an organized Heart Failure Collaboratory., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure (HF), but the outcome by type of AF is largely unknown., Objectives: This study investigated outcomes related to type of AF (paroxysmal, persistent or permanent, or new onset) in 2 recent large trials in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction., Methods: The study analyzed patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure) trials. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes related to AF type., Results: Of 15,415 patients, 5,481 (35.6%) had a history of AF at randomization, and of these, 1,645 (30.0%) had paroxysmal AF. Compared with patients without AF, patients with paroxysmal AF at randomization had a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 1.32; p < 0.001), HF hospitalization (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51; p < 0.001), and stroke (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.76; p = 0.037), whereas the corresponding risks in patients with persistent or permanent AF were not elevated. Neither type of AF was associated with higher mortality. New onset AF was associated with the greatest risk of adverse outcomes: primary endpoint (HR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.80 to 2.71), HF hospitalization (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.81), stroke (HR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.88), and all-cause mortality (HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.86 to 2.74), all p values < 0.001, compared with patients without AF. Anticoagulants were used less often in patients with paroxysmal (53%) and new onset (16%) AF than in patients with persistent or permanent AF (71%)., Conclusions: Among HF patients with a history of AF, those with paroxysmal AF were at greater risk of HF hospitalization and stroke than were patients with persistent or permanent AF, underlining the importance of anticoagulant therapy. New onset AF was associated with increased risk of all outcomes. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure [ATMOSPHERE]; NCT00853658)., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite increased use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), some patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain at high risk for hospitalization and mortality. Remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressures provides clinicians with actionable information to help further optimize medications and improve outcomes., Objectives: CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial) analyzed PA pressure-guided heart failure (HF) management in patients with HFrEF based on their ability to tolerate GDMT., Methods: CHAMPION enrolled 550 patients with chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. A pre-specified sub-group analysis compared HF hospitalization and mortality rates between treatment and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%). Post hoc analyses in patients who tolerated GDMT were also performed. Hospitalizations and mortality were assessed using Andersen-Gill and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: In 456 patients with HFrEF, HF hospitalization rates were 28% lower in the treatment group than in the control group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.88; p = 0.0013), with a strong trend for 32% lower mortality (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.02; p = 0.06). A 445-patient subset received at least 1 GDMT (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, or beta-blocker) at baseline; these patients had 33% lower HF hospitalization rates (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.82; p = 0.0002) and 47% lower mortality (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.96, p = 0.0293) than controls. Compared with controls, patients receiving both components of optimal GDMT (n = 337) had 43% lower HF hospitalizations (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74; p < 0.0001) and 57% lower mortality (HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.76; p = 0.0026)., Conclusions: PA pressure-guided HF management reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF on GDMT, underscoring the important synergy of addressing hemodynamic and neurohormonal targets of HF therapy. (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients [CHAMPION]; NCT00531661)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rates of heart failure hospitalization remain unacceptably high. Such hospitalizations are associated with substantial patient, caregiver, and economic costs. Randomized controlled trials of noninvasive telemedical systems have failed to demonstrate reduced rates of hospitalization. The failure of these technologies may be due to the limitations of the signals measured. Intracardiac and pulmonary artery pressure-guided management has become a focus of hospitalization reduction in heart failure. Early studies using implantable hemodynamic monitors demonstrated the potential of pressure-based heart failure management, whereas subsequent studies confirmed the clinical utility of this approach. One large pivotal trial proved the safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure-guided heart failure management, showing a marked reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients randomized to active pressure-guided management. "Next-generation" implantable hemodynamic monitors are in development, and novel approaches for the use of this data promise to expand the use of pressure-guided heart failure management., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

More than 1 million heart failure hospitalizations occur annually, and congestion is the predominant cause. Rehospitalizations for recurrent congestion portend poor outcomes independently of age and renal function. Persistent congestion trumps serum creatinine increases in predicting adverse heart failure outcomes. No decongestive pharmacological therapy has reduced these harmful consequences. Simplified ultrafiltration devices permit fluid removal in lower-acuity hospital settings, but with conflicting results regarding safety and efficacy. Ultrafiltration performed at fixed rates after onset of therapy-induced increased serum creatinine was not superior to standard care and resulted in more complications. In contrast, compared with diuretic agents, some data suggest that adjustment of ultrafiltration rates to patients' vital signs and renal function may be associated with more effective decongestion and fewer heart failure events. Essential aspects of ultrafiltration remain poorly defined. Further research is urgently needed, given the burden of congestion and data suggesting sustained benefits of early and adjustable ultrafiltration., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Expedited Access for Premarket Approval and De Novo Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Diseases or Conditions document was issued as a guidance for industry and for the Food and Drug Administration. The Expedited Access Pathway was designed as a new program for medical devices that demonstrated the potential to address unmet medical needs for life threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions. The Food and Drug Administration would consider assessments of a device's effect on intermediate endpoints that, when improving in a congruent fashion, are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence to support the use of 3 such intermediate endpoints: natriuretic peptides, such as N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide/B-type natriuretic peptide, the 6-min walk test distance, and health-related quality of life in heart failure., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most prevalent valve disorders and has numerous etiologies, including primary (organic) MR, due to underlying degenerative/structural mitral valve (MV) pathology, and secondary (functional) MR, which is principally caused by global or regional left ventricular remodeling and/or severe left atrial dilation. Diagnosis and optimal management of MR requires integration of valve disease and heart failure specialists, MV cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists with expertise in structural heart disease, and imaging experts. The introduction of transcatheter MV therapies has highlighted the need for a consensus approach to pragmatic clinical trial design and uniform endpoint definitions to evaluate outcomes in patients with MR. The Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration between leading academic research organizations and physician-scientists specializing in MV disease from the United States and Europe. Three in-person meetings were held in Virginia and New York during which 44 heart failure, valve, and imaging experts, MV surgeons and interventional cardiologists, clinical trial specialists and statisticians, and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered all aspects of MV pathophysiology, prognosis, and therapies, culminating in a 2-part document describing consensus recommendations for clinical trial design (Part 1) and endpoint definitions (Part 2) to guide evaluation of transcatheter and surgical therapies for MR. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative effectiveness evaluation of new devices and approaches to treat MR. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment of new transcatheter MV devices, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most prevalent valve disorders and has numerous etiologies, including primary (organic) MR, due to underlying degenerative/structural mitral valve (MV) pathology, and secondary (functional) MR, which is principally caused by global or regional left ventricular remodeling and/or severe left atrial dilation. Diagnosis and optimal management of MR requires integration of valve disease and heart failure specialists, MV cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists with expertise in structural heart disease, and imaging experts. The introduction of transcatheter MV therapies has highlighted the need for a consensus approach to pragmatic clinical trial design and uniform endpoint definitions to evaluate outcomes in patients with MR. The Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration between leading academic research organizations and physician-scientists specializing in MV disease from the United States and Europe. Three in-person meetings were held in Virginia and New York during which 44 heart failure, valve, and imaging experts, MV surgeons and interventional cardiologists, clinical trial specialists and statisticians, and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered all aspects of MV pathophysiology, prognosis, and therapies, culminating in a 2-part document describing consensus recommendations for clinical trial design (Part 1) and endpoint definitions (Part 2) to guide evaluation of transcatheter and surgical therapies for MR. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative effectiveness evaluation of new devices and approaches to treat MR. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment of new transcatheter MV devices, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a highly prevalent, though often unrecognized, comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Data from HF population studies suggest that it may present in 30% to 50% of HF patients. CSA is recognized as an important contributor to the progression of HF and to HF-related morbidity and mortality. Over the past 2 decades, an expanding body of research has begun to shed light on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of CSA. Armed with this growing knowledge base, the sleep, respiratory, and cardiovascular research communities have been working to identify ways to treat CSA in HF with the ultimate goal of improving patient quality of life and clinical outcomes. In this paper, we examine the current state of knowledge about the mechanisms of CSA in HF and review emerging therapies for this disorder., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe usage of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) during mandated waiting periods following myocardial infarction (MI) for patients perceived to be at high risk for sudden cardiac arrest (SCA)., Background: Current device guidelines and insurance coverage require waiting periods of either 40 days or 3 months before implanting a cardioverter-defibrillator post-myocardial infarction (MI), depending on whether or not acute revascularization was undertaken., Methods: We assessed characteristics of and outcomes for patients who had a WCD prescribed in the first 3 months post-MI. The WCD medical order registry was searched for patients who were coded as having had a "recent MI with ejection fraction ≤35%" or given an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision 410.xx diagnostic code (acute MI), and then matched to device-recorded data., Results: Between September 2005 and July 2011, 8,453 unique patients (age 62.7 ± 12.7 years, 73% male) matched study criteria. A total of 133 patients (1.6%) received 309 appropriate shocks. Of these patients, 91% were resuscitated from a ventricular arrhythmia. For shocked patients, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was ≤30% in 106, 30% to 35% in 17, >36% in 8, and not reported in 2 patients. Of the 38% of patients not revascularized, 84% had a LVEF ≤30%; of the 62% of patients revascularized, 77% had a LVEF ≤30%. The median time from the index MI to WCD therapy was 16 days. Of the treated patients, 75% received treatment in the first month, and 96% within the first 3 months of use. Shock success resulting in survival was 84% in nonrevascularized and 95% in revascularized patients., Conclusions: During the 40-day and 3-month waiting periods in patients post-MI, the WCD successfully treated SCA in 1.4%, and the risk was highest in the first month of WCD use. The WCD may benefit individual patients selected for high risk of SCA early post-MI., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Heart failure requiring urgent therapy represents a burgeoning health care burden. Although acute heart failure syndromes are commonly defined as a change in chronic heart failure signs and symptoms requiring urgent therapy, the presentation, development, and response to treatment is highly dependent on individual patient characteristics. This heterogeneity has led to challenges in interpreting widely differing study methods, including eligibility requirements and outcome measures. To improve interpretation of results and translate such information to better patient care, it is essential to present an accurate description of the patient population and study design. Based on existing recommendations and expert consensus, the authors present standardized reporting criteria to improve interpretability of research in this challenging cohort., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with respect to heart failure etiology among patients in the REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction) study., Background: CRT improves outcomes in New York Heart Association functional class III/IV heart failure with wide QRS with a more pronounced effect on left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling in nonischemic patients., Methods: A total of 277 patients with nonischemic heart disease (IHD) and 333 with IHD etiology in New York Heart Association functional class I or II with QRS ≥120 ms and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% received a CRT (± implantable cardioverter-defibrillator) and were randomized to CRT-ON or CRT-OFF for 12 months. The primary end point was the percentage of patients worsened by the HF clinical composite response, and multiple prespecified secondary end points were evaluated regarding etiology using univariable and multivariable analysis., Results: At baseline, IHD patients were significantly older and had more comorbidities and less dyssynchrony than non-IHD patients. In non-IHD patients, 10% worsened in CRT-ON compared with 19% in CRT-OFF (p = 0.01). In IHD patients, 20% worsened in the CRT-ON compared with 24% in the CRT-OFF group (p = 0.10). Non-IHD patients assigned to CRT-ON improved more in left ventricular end-systolic volume index than IHD patients. Randomization to CRT, left bundle branch block, and wider QRS duration independently predicted response to both end points, whereas non-IHD etiology was an independent predictor only for left ventricular end-systolic volume index., Conclusions: This substudy of REVERSE shows that CRT reverses left ventricular remodeling with a more extensive effect on nonischemic patients. Etiology was, however, not an independent predictor of clinical response. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154)., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the long-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the European cohort of patients enrolled in the REVERSE (Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction) trial., Background: Previous data suggest that CRT slows disease progression and improves the outcomes of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and a wide QRS complex., Methods: We randomly assigned 262 recipients of CRT pacemakers or defibrillators, with QRS > or =120 ms and LV ejection fraction < or =40% to active (CRT ON; n = 180) versus control (CRT OFF; n = 82) treatment, for 24 months. Mean baseline LV ejection fraction was 28.0%. All patients were in sinus rhythm and receiving optimal medical therapy. The primary study end point was the proportion worsened by the heart failure (HF) clinical composite response. The main secondary study end point was left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi)., Results: In the CRT ON group, 19% of patients were worsened versus 34% in the CRT OFF group (p = 0.01). The LVESVi decreased by a mean of 27.5 +/- 31.8 ml/m(2) in the CRT ON group versus 2.7 +/- 25.8 ml/m(2) in the CRT OFF group (p < 0.0001). Time to first HF hospital stay or death (hazard ratio: 0.38; p = 0.003) was significantly delayed by CRT., Conclusions: After 24 months of CRT, and compared with those of control subjects, clinical outcomes and LV function were improved and LV dimensions were decreased in this patient population in New York Heart Association functional classes I or II. These observations suggest that CRT prevents the progression of disease in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic LV dysfunction. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154)., (2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.)

Objectives: We sought to determine the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II heart failure (HF) and NYHA functional class I (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stage C) patients with previous HF symptoms., Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves left ventricular (LV) structure and function and clinical outcomes in NYHA functional class III and IV HF with prolonged QRS., Methods: Six hundred ten patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with a QRS > or =120 ms and a LV ejection fraction < or =40% received a CRT device (+/-defibrillator) and were randomly assigned to active CRT (CRT-ON; n = 419) or control (CRT-OFF; n = 191) for 12 months. The primary end point was the HF clinical composite response, which scores patients as improved, unchanged, or worsened. The prospectively powered secondary end point was LV end-systolic volume index. Hospitalization for worsening HF was evaluated in a prospective secondary analysis of health care use., Results: The HF clinical composite response end point, which compared only the percent worsened, indicated 16% worsened in CRT-ON compared with 21% in CRT-OFF (p = 0.10). Patients assigned to CRT-ON experienced a greater improvement in LV end-systolic volume index (-18.4 +/- 29.5 ml/m2 vs. -1.3 +/- 23.4 ml/m2, p < 0.0001) and other measures of LV remodeling. Time-to-first HF hospitalization was significantly delayed in CRT-ON (hazard ratio: 0.47, p = 0.03)., Conclusions: The REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction) trial demonstrates that CRT, in combination with optimal medical therapy (+/-defibrillator), reduces the risk for heart failure hospitalization and improves ventricular structure and function in NYHA functional class II and NYHA functional class I (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stage C) patients with previous HF symptoms. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154).

Objectives: This study was designed to analyze how patient preferences for survival versus quality-of-life change after hospitalization with advanced heart failure (HF)., Background: Although patient-centered care is a priority, little is known about preferences to trade length of life for quality among hospitalized patients with advanced HF, and it is not known how those preferences change after hospitalization., Methods: The time trade-off utility, symptom scores, and 6-min walk distance were measured in 287 patients in the ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheter Effectiveness) trial at hospitalization and again during 6 months after therapy to relieve congestion., Results: Willingness to trade was bimodal. At baseline, the median trade for better quality was 3 months' survival time, with a modest relation to symptom severity. Preference for survival time was stable for most patients, but increase after discharge occurred in 98 of 145 (68%) patients initially willing to trade survival time, and was more common with symptom improvement and after therapy guided by pulmonary artery catheters (p = 0.034). Adjusting days alive after hospital discharge for patients' survival preference reduced overall days by 24%, with the largest reduction among patients dying early after discharge (p = 0.0015)., Conclusions: Preferences remain in favor of survival for many patients despite advanced HF symptoms, but increase further after hospitalization. The bimodal distribution and the stability of patient preference limit utility as a trial end point, but support its relevance in design of care for an individual patient.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a clinical model predictive of in-hospital mortality in a broad hospitalized heart failure (HF) patient population., Background: Heart failure patients experience high rates of hospital stays and poor outcomes. Although predictors of mortality have been identified in HF clinical trials, hospitalized patients might differ greatly from trial populations, and such predictors might underestimate mortality in a real-world population., Methods: The OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure) is a registry/performance improvement program for patients hospitalized with HF in 259 U.S. hospitals. Forty-five potential predictor variables were used in a stepwise logistic regression model for in-hospital mortality. Continuous variables that did not meet linearity assumptions were transformed. All significant variables (p < 0.05) were entered into multivariate analysis. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for the correlation of data within the same hospital in the adjusted models., Results: Of 48,612 patients enrolled, mean age was 73.1 years, 52% were women, 74% were Caucasian, and 46% had ischemic etiology. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.39 +/- 0.18. In-hospital mortality occurred in 1,834 (3.8%). Multivariable predictors of mortality included age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), sodium, creatinine, HF as primary cause of hospitalization, and presence/absence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. A scoring system was developed to predict mortality., Conclusions: Risk of in-hospital mortality for patients hospitalized with HF remains high and is increased in patients who are older and have low SBP or sodium levels and elevated heart rate or creatinine at admission. Application of this risk-prediction algorithm might help identify patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality who might benefit from aggressive monitoring and intervention.

Objectives: This study ascertains the relationship between continuation or withdrawal of beta-blocker therapy and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with systolic heart failure (HF)., Background: Whether beta-blocker therapy should be continued or withdrawn during hospitalization for decompensated HF has not been well studied in a broad cohort of patients., Methods: The OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure) program enrolled 5,791 patients admitted with HF in a registry with pre-specified 60- to 90-day follow-up at 91 academic and community hospitals throughout the U.S. Outcomes data were prospectively collected and analyzed according to whether beta-blocker therapy was continued, withdrawn, or not started., Results: Among 2,373 patients eligible for beta-blockers at discharge, there were 1,350 (56.9%) who were receiving beta-blockers before admission and continued on therapy, 632 (26.6%) newly started, 79 (3.3%) in which therapy was withdrawn, and 303 (12.8%) eligible but not treated. Continuation of beta-blockers was associated with a significantly lower risk and propensity adjusted post-discharge death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 0.99, p = 0.044) and death/rehospitalization (odds ratio: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.92, p = 0.012) compared with no beta-blocker. In contrast, withdrawal of beta-blocker was associated with a substantially higher adjusted risk for mortality compared with those continued on beta-blockers (HR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2 to 4.6, p = 0.013), but with similar risk as HF patients eligible but not treated with beta-blockers., Conclusions: The continuation of beta-blocker therapy in patients hospitalized with decompensated HF is associated with lower post-discharge mortality risk and improved treatment rates. In contrast, withdrawal of beta-blocker therapy is associated with worse risk and propensity-adjusted mortality. (Organized Program To Initiate Lifesaving Treatment In Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure [OPTIMIZE-HF]; NCT00344513).

Objectives: We sought to examine the characteristics, quality of care, and clinical outcomes for a large cohort of African-American patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) in centers participating in a quality improvement initiative., Background: Heart failure in African Americans is characterized by variations in natural history, lesser response to evidence-based therapies, and disparate health care. We hypothesized that a performance improvement program will achieve similar adherence to quality measures in African Americans admitted with HF compared with non-African Americans., Methods: The OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure) registry-based performance-improvement program includes a pre-specified 10% subgroup with 60- to 90-day follow-up. Data on quality of care measures and outcomes were analyzed for 8,608 African-American patients compared with 38,501 non-African-American patients., Results: African Americans were significantly younger and more likely to receive evidence-based medications but less likely to receive discharge instructions and smoking cessation counseling. In multivariable analyses, African-American race was an independent predictor of lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.87; p < 0.001) but similar hospital length of stay. After multivariable adjustment, post-discharge outcomes were similar for American-American and non-African-American patients, but African-American race was associated with higher angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription and left ventricular function assessment; no other HF quality indicators were influenced by race., Conclusions: In the context of a performance-improvement program, African Americans with HF received similar or better treatment with evidence-based medications, less discharge counseling, had better in-hospital survival, and similar adjusted risk of follow-up death/repeat hospital stay.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a heart failure (HF) management strategy using continuous intracardiac pressure monitoring could decrease HF morbidity., Background: Patients with HF may experience frequent decompensations that require hospitalization despite intensive treatment and follow-up., Methods: The COMPASS-HF (Chronicle Offers Management to Patients with Advanced Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure) study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled trial of 274 New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF patients who received an implantable continuous hemodynamic monitor. Patients were randomized to a Chronicle (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota) (n = 134) or control (n = 140) group. All patients received optimal medical therapy, but the hemodynamic information from the monitor was used to guide patient management only in the Chronicle group. Primary end points included freedom from system-related complications, freedom from pressure-sensor failure, and reduction in the rate of HF-related events (hospitalizations and emergency or urgent care visits requiring intravenous therapy)., Results: The 2 safety end points were met with no pressure-sensor failures and system-related complications in only 8% of the 277 patients who underwent implantation (all but 4 complications were successfully resolved). The primary efficacy end point was not met because the Chronicle group had a nonsignificant 21% lower rate of all HF-related events compared with the control group (p = 0.33). A retrospective analysis of the time to first HF hospitalization showed a 36% reduction (p = 0.03) in the relative risk of a HF-related hospitalization in the Chronicle group., Conclusions: The implantable continuous hemodynamic monitor-guided care did not significantly reduce total HF-related events compared with optimal medical management. Additional trials will be necessary to establish the clinical benefit of implantable continuous hemodynamic monitor-guided care in patients with advanced HF.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with preserved and reduced systolic function heart failure (HF)., Background: Heart failure with preserved systolic function (PSF) is common but not well understood., Methods: This analysis of the OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure) registry compared 20,118 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and 21,149 patients with PSF (left ventricular ejection fraction [EF] > or =40%). Sixty- to 90-day follow-up was obtained in a pre-specified 10% sample of patients. Analyses of patients with PSF defined as EF >50% were also performed for comparison., Results: Patients with PSF (EF > or =40%) were more likely to be older, female, and Caucasian and to have a nonischemic etiology. Although length of hospital stay was the same in both groups, risk of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients with PSF (EF > or =40%) (2.9% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.0001). During 60- to 90-day post-discharge follow-up, patients with PSF (EF > or =40%) had a similar mortality risk (9.5% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.459) and rehospitalization rates (29.2% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.591) compared with patients with LVSD. Findings were comparable with those with PSF defined as EF >50%. In a risk- and propensity-adjusted model, there were no significant relationships between discharge use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or beta-blocker and 60- to 90-day mortality and rehospitalization rates in patients with PSF., Conclusions: Data from the OPTIMIZE-HF registry reveal a high prevalence of HF with PSF, and these patients have a similar post-discharge mortality risk and equally high rates of rehospitalization as patients with HF and LVSD. Despite the burden to patients and health care systems, data are lacking on effective management strategies for patients with HF and PSF. (Organized Program To Initiate Lifesaving Treatment In Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure [OPTIMIZE-HF]); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00344513?order=1; NCT00344513).

Objectives: This study sought to assess the pharmacokinetics and clinical effects of oral BG9928 in heart failure (HF) patients., Background: Declining renal function during HF treatment is associated with poor outcomes. BG9928, a selective inhibitor of the A1 adenosine receptor, is proposed to cause natriuresis without causing a decline in renal function., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with HF and systolic dysfunction who were receiving standard therapy. Patients were randomized to receive BG9928 (3, 15, 75, or 225 mg) or placebo orally for 10 days. The primary end point was change in sodium excretion. Changes in potassium excretion, creatinine clearance, and body weight also were evaluated., Results: A total of 50 patients were studied. BG9928 increased sodium excretion compared with placebo, and natriuresis was maintained over 10 days with little kaliuresis. A linear trend in dose response was observed on day 1 (p = 0.04) but not on days 6 or 10. Adjusted creatinine clearance was unchanged over the 10 days. Patients who received 15, 75, or 225 mg of BG9928 had a reduction in body weight compared with placebo (-0.6, -0.7, -0.5, vs. +0.3 kg, respectively) at the end of study. BG9928 was well tolerated. The pharmacokinetic profile of BG9928 was consistent with once-daily dosing., Conclusions: Oral BG9928 over the dose range of 3 to 225 mg/day produced significant increases in sodium excretion in patients with stable HF without causing kaliuresis or reducing renal function.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of beta-blocker therapy on outcomes of hospitalized heart failure (HF) patients enrolled in the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization (ESCAPE)., Background: The effect of beta-blocker therapy on outcomes among hospitalized HF patients is not well documented., Methods: We studied the association between beta-blocker therapy and outcomes among 432 hospitalized HF patients in the ESCAPE trial., Results: A total of 268 patients (62%) were on beta-blockers before admission. These patients had a shorter length of stay (7.9 +/- 6.3 days vs. 9.4 +/- 6.7 days; p < 0.01) and a lower six-month mortality rate (16% vs. 24%; p = 0.03) compared with those who were not on beta-blockers. Of the patients who were on admission beta-blockers and were discharged alive (n = 263), beta-blockers were discontinued in 54 and significantly modified (>50% dose reduction or changed to alternative beta-blocker) in 28 patients during hospitalization. Factors associated with discontinuation of beta-blockers during hospitalization included respiratory rate >24 breaths/min (30.8% vs. 16.9%; p = 0.03), heart rate >100 beats/min (19.2% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.01), lower ejection fraction (17.9 +/- 5.4% vs. 20.2 +/- 7.1%; p = 0.04), diabetes (21.2% vs. 37.1%; p = 0.03), and systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg during hospitalization (70.3% vs. 54.1%; p = 0.03). After adjusting for factors associated with beta-blocker use and those with outcomes, consistent beta-blocker use during hospitalization was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of rehospitalization or death within six months after discharge (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.71; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Beta-blocker therapy before and during hospitalization for HF is associated with improved outcomes.

Objectives: This study sought to assess the potential utility of impedance cardiography (ICG) in predicting clinical deterioration in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF)., Background: Impedance cardiography uses changes in thoracic electrical impedance to estimate hemodynamic variables, but its ability to predict clinical events has not been evaluated., Methods: We prospectively evaluated 212 stable patients with HF and a recent episode of clinical decompensation who underwent serial clinical evaluation and blinded ICG testing every 2 weeks for 26 weeks and were followed up for the occurrence of death or worsening HF requiring hospitalization or emergent care., Results: During the study, 59 patients experienced 104 episodes of decompensated HF (16 deaths, 78 hospitalizations, and 10 emergency visits). Multivariate analysis identified 6 clinical and ICG variables that independently predicted an event within 14 days of assessment. These included three clinical variables (visual analog score, New York Heart Association functional class, and systolic blood pressure) and three ICG parameters (velocity index, thoracic fluid content index, and left ventricular ejection time). The three ICG parameters combined into a composite score was a powerful predictor of an event during the next 14 days (p = 0.0002). Visits with a high-risk composite score had 2.5 times greater likelihood and those with a low-risk score had a 70% lower likelihood of a near-term event compared with visits at intermediate risk., Conclusions: These results suggest that when performed at regular intervals in stable patients with HF with a recent episode of clinical decompensation, ICG can identify patients at increased near-term risk of recurrent decompensation.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the renal effects of a V2 receptor arginine vasopressin (AVP) antagonist in heart failure., Background: Arginine vasopressin has been implicated in the renal water retention and dilutional hyponatremia associated with chronic heart failure., Methods: We examined the effects of the oral, non-peptide, selective V2 receptor antagonist lixivaptan in 42 diuretic-requiring patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending single-dose study. After overnight fluid deprivation, patients received single-blind placebo on day -1 (baseline) and double-blind study medication (placebo [n = 12] or lixivaptan 10, 30, 75, 150, 250, or 400 mg [n = 5 per dose group]) on day 1, followed by 4 h of continued fluid restriction and additional 20 h with ad libitum fluid intake., Results: At all but the 10-mg dose, lixivaptan produced a significant and dose-related increase in urine volume over 4 h, compared with placebo. During 24 h, increases in urine volume ranged from 1.8 l with placebo to 3.9 l after the 400-mg lixivaptan dose (p < 0.01). These increases in urine volumes were accompanied by significant increases in solute-free water excretion. At higher doses, serum sodium was significantly increased; AVP antagonism was well tolerated in these patients., Conclusions: These observations confirm a role for AVP in the renal water retention associated with heart failure and suggest that the V2 receptor antagonist lixivaptan may be a promising therapeutic agent for the treatment of heart failure.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of implanting a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) system., Background: Clinicians and patients require data on the safety of the CRT implant procedure to estimate procedural risk., Methods: We evaluated outcomes of transvenous CRT system implantation in 2,078 patients from the Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE) study, the MIRACLE Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) study, and the InSync III study. We compared the MIRACLE study to the InSync III study and the MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase to its general phase to evaluate the effect of new technologies., Results: The implant attempt succeeded in 1,903 of 2,078 (91.6%) patients. Implant time decreased from 2.7 h in the MIRACLE study to 2.3 h in the InSync III study (p < 0.001), and from 2.8 h in the MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase to 2.4 h in the general phase (p < 0.001). The implant procedure produced 62 perioperative complications in 53 (9.3%) MIRACLE trial patients; 159 in 135 (21.1%) MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase patients and 71 in 62 (13.9%) general phase patients (p < 0.05 vs. randomized); and 41 in 37 (8.8%) InSync III study patients (p = NS vs. the MIRACLE study). We observed 73 postoperative complications in 62 (11.7%) MIRACLE trial patients, 77 in 68 (11.9%) MIRACLE ICD study randomized phase patients and 56 in 45 (11.0%) general phase patients (p = NS), and 37 in 34 (8.6%) InSync III study patients (p = NS). A total of 8% of patients required reoperation to treat lead dislodgement, extracardiac stimulation, or infection during follow-up., Conclusions: Transvenous CRT system implantation appears safe, well-tolerated, has a high success rate, and improves with operator experience and the addition of new technologies.

Objectives: The InSync III study evaluated sequential cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure and prolonged QRS., Background: Simultaneous CRT improves hemodynamic and clinical performance in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure (HF) and a wide QRS. Recent evidence suggests that sequentially stimulating the ventricles might provide additional benefit., Methods: This multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized, six-month trial enrolled a total of 422 patients to determine the effectiveness of sequential CRT in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV HF and a prolonged QRS. The study evaluated: whether patients receiving sequential CRT for six months experienced improvement in 6-min hall walk (6MHW) distance, NYHA functional class, and quality of life (QoL) over control group patients from the reported Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE) trial; whether sequential CRT increased stroke volume compared to simultaneous CRT; and whether an increase in stroke volume translated into greater clinical improvements compared to patients receiving simultaneous CRT., Results: InSync III patients experienced greater improvement in 6MHW, NYHA functional class, and QoL at six months compared to control (all p < 0.0001). Optimization of the sequential pacing increased (median 7.3%) stroke volume in 77% of patients. No additional improvement in NYHA functional class or QoL was seen compared to the simultaneous CRT group; however, InSync III patients demonstrated greater exercise capacity., Conclusions: Sequential CRT provided most patients with a modest increase in stroke volume above that achieved during simultaneous CRT. Patients receiving sequential CRT had improved exercise capacity, but no change in functional status or QoL.