Search

Aims: Because of concerns about the safety of aliskiren in patients with diabetes, study treatment was stopped prematurely in the Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing OutcomeS for Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE). We examined outcomes and treatment effect in these patients compared with those without diabetes.Methods and Results: ATMOSPHERE included 7016 patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) randomly assigned to enalapril plus aliskiren, aliskiren alone, or enalapril. At baseline, 1944 (27.7%) patients had diabetes. Median follow-up was shorter in patients with diabetes compared with those without (24 months vs. 46 months). Among patients with diabetes, the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 216 patients (33.1%) in the enalapril group (reference), 172 (27.4%) in the aliskiren group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.00; P = 0.053], and 196 (29.5%) in the combination group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04; P = 0.13). The effects of the treatments studied did not differ significantly compared with patients without diabetes. In patients with diabetes, aliskiren monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic hypotension compared to enalapril [42 (6.7%) vs. 65 (10.0%); P = 0.04], whereas other adverse events were generally balanced between the three groups.Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF and diabetes, there was no signal of harm and a trend towards benefit when direct renin inhibition monotherapy was compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, whereas combined aliskiren and enalapril treatment led to more adverse events with no improvement in outcomes. Treatment effects did not differ in patients with diabetes compared with those without. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation., (© Copyright 2020 European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Nearly 60% of the world's population lives in Asia but little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of Asian patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to other areas of the world., Methods and Results: We pooled two, large, global trials, with similar design, in 13 174 patients with HFrEF (patient distribution: China 833, India 1390, Japan 209, Korea 223, Philippines 223, Taiwan 199 and Thailand 95, Western Europe 3521, Eastern Europe 4758, North America 613, and Latin America 1110). Asian patients were younger (55.0-63.9 years) than in Western Europe (67.9 years) and North America (66.6 years). Diuretics and devices were used less, and digoxin used more, in Asia. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was higher in China (66.3%), the Philippines (64.1%) and Latin America (62.8%) compared to Europe and North America (range 32.8% to 49.6%). The rate of cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization was higher in Asia (e.g. Taiwan 17.2, China 14.9 per 100 patient-years) than in Western Europe (10.4) and North America (12.8). However, the adjusted risk of cardiovascular death was higher in many Asian countries than in Western Europe (except Japan) and the risk of heart failure hospitalization was lower in India and in the Philippines than in Western Europe, but significantly higher in China, Japan, and Taiwan., Conclusion: Patient characteristics and outcomes vary between Asia and other regions and between Asian countries. These variations may reflect several factors, including geography, climate and environment, diet and lifestyle, health care systems, genetics and socioeconomic influences., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart failure (HF) patients with QRS prolongation and ejection fraction (EF) ≤30%. To assess the effect of CRT in less severe systolic dysfunction, outcomes in the REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction (REVERSE) study were evaluated in which patients with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) >30% were included., Methods and Results: The results of patients with baseline EF >30% (n=177) and those with EF ≤30% (n=431), as determined by a blinded core laboratory, were compared. In the LVEF >30% subgroup, there was a trend for improvement in the clinical composite response with CRT ON versus CRT OFF (P=0.06) and significant reductions in LV end systolic volume index (-6.7 ± 21.1 versus 2.1 ± 17.6 mL/m(2); P=0.01) and LV mass (-20.6 ± 50.5 versus 5.0 ± 42.4 g; P=0.04) after 12 months. The time to death or first HF hospitalization was significantly prolonged with CRT (hazard ratio, 0.26; P=0.012). In the LVEF <30% subgroup, significant improvements in clinical composite response (P=0.02), reverse remodeling parameters, and time to death or first HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.58; P=0.047) were observed. After adjusting for important covariates, the CRT ON assignment remained independently associated with improved time to death or first HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.54; P=0.035), whereas there was no significant interaction with LVEF., Conclusions: Among subjects with mild HF, QRS prolongation, and LVEF >30%, CRT produced reverse remodeling and similar clinical benefit compared with subjects with more severe LV systolic dysfunction., Clinical Trial Registration- Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00271154.

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: This study examines B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels in patients with systolic versus non-systolic dysfunction presenting with shortness of breath., Background: Preserved systolic function is increasingly common in patients presenting with symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) but is still difficult to diagnose., Methods: The Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study was a seven-center, prospective study of 1,586 patients who presented with acute dyspnea and had BNP measured upon arrival. A subset of 452 patients with a final adjudicated diagnosis of CHF who underwent echocardiography within 30 days of their visit to the emergency department (ED) were evaluated. An ejection fraction of greater than 45% was defined as non-systolic CHF., Results: Of the 452 patients with a final diagnosis of CHF, 165 (36.5%) had preserved left ventricular function on echocardiography, whereas 287 (63.5%) had systolic dysfunction. Patients with non-systolic heart failure (NS-CHF) had significantly lower BNP levels than those with systolic heart failure (S-CHF) (413 pg/ml vs. 821 pg/ml, p < 0.001). As the severity of heart failure worsened by New York Heart Association class, the percentage of S-CHF increased, whereas the percentage of NS-CHF decreased. When patients with NS-CHF were compared with patients without CHF (n = 770), a BNP value of 100 pg/ml had a sensitivity of 86%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and an accuracy of 75% for detecting abnormal diastolic dysfunction. Using Logistic regression to differentiate S-CHF from NS-CHF, BNP entered first as the strongest predictor followed by oxygen saturation, history of myocardial infarction, and heart rate., Conclusions: We conclude that NS-CHF is common in the setting of the ED and that differentiating NS-CHF from S-CHF is difficult in this setting using traditional parameters. Whereas BNP add modest discriminatory value in differentiating NS-CHF from S-CHF, its major role is still the separation of patients with CHF from those without CHF.