TBD Meeting (3134-23)

Among “bi-risk” patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who received a stent and completed 9-12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), those who de-escalated therapy to clopidogrel alone as opposed to continuing on clopidogrel and aspirin for 9 months had 25% less bleeding without increased ischemic risk.

The findings are from the OPT-BIRISK trial in more than 7,700 patients in China deemed “bi-risk” because they had both a high risk of clinically relevant bleeding and a high risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE).

Yaling Han, MD, from General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, presented the trial in a hotline session at the annual congress of the  European Society of Cardiology.

The results provide evidence for this treatment strategy from “a large cohort seen in clinical practice in whom the question of continuing DAPT vs. deescalating to clopidogrel monotherapy at this time period has not previously been addressed,” Dr. Han said in an interview.

She acknowledged that the findings may not be generalizable to non-Asian cohorts. Also, these patients were event-free after 9 months on DAPT, so they were relatively stable. Moreover, the finding that clopidogrel monotherapy was superior to DAPT for MACCE is only hypothesis-generating.

Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., the assigned discussant at the session, congratulated the authors “for an important trial in the understudied East Asian population. The OPT-BIRISK trial adds information to the complex puzzle of antithrombotic therapy after ACS,” he said.

However, he brought up a few points that should be taken into consideration when interpreting this trial, including the ones noted by Dr. Han.

In an interview, Dr. Lopes cautioned that OPT-BIRISK tested an antiplatelet strategy “in challenging patients at increased risk for bleeding and ischemic events, but I don’t think we can say this is truly a high-risk population.” Invited to reply, Dr. Han conceded that these patients constituted a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients.
 

Double-edged sword

“Antiplatelet therapy is a double-edged sword: it reduces ischemic risk but increases bleeding risk. Optimal antiplatelet therapy for bi-risk ACS patients remains a clinical challenge, and unsolved problem for the cardiovascular physician,” Dr. Han said in a press briefing.

The rationale and design of OPT-BIRISK were published in the American Heart Journal in 2020.

Between February 2018 and December 2020, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 7,758 bi-risk patients in 101 centers in China who had completed 9-12 months of DAPT (aspirin plus either clopidogrel or ticagrelor) after drug-eluting stent implantation for ACS.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either clopidogrel plus aspirin or clopidogrel plus placebo for 9 months, followed by 3 months of aspirin.

The primary endpoint was clinically relevant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, at 9 months after randomization.

Key secondary endpoints were MACCE (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or clinically driven revascularization), individual components of MACCE, any bleeding, and stent thrombosis at 9 months after randomization.

The patient criteria for having bi-risk ACS were:

• < 65 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion and at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• 65-78 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion or at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• > 75 years old.

The high bleeding risk criteria were female gender, iron deficiency anemia, stroke, taking a type 2 diabetes medication, and chronic kidney disease.

The high ischemic risk criteria included troponin-positive ACS, previous stent thrombosis, previous CV events (MI, stroke, peripheral artery disease [PAD], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), on a type 2 diabetes medication, chronic kidney disease, and certain lesion characteristics.

The patients had a mean age of about 65 years and 41% were female. 

About half (52%) had type 2 diabetes, 18% had previous MI, and 15% had previous ischemic stroke. The ACS was mainly unstable angina (62%), followed by NSTEMI (17%) or STEMI (21%).

The patients had a mean high ischemic risk criteria of 3.2 and a mean high bleeding risk criteria of 1.4.

The initial DAPT treatment was aspirin and clopidogrel in three quarters of the patients and aspirin and ticagrelor in the remaining patients.

At 9 months, the primary endpoint of BARC type 2-5 bleeding occurred in 2.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.3% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97, P = .03).

“The bleeding results are not surprising,” Dr. Lopes said. Monotherapy vs. DAPT will cause less bleeding, Dr. Han agreed.

At 9 months, MACCE occurred in 2.6% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96, P = .02).

Interpreting this latter finding as “reduced risk” of MACCE “is a stretch,” Dr. Lopes cautioned.

A potential explanation for this finding in the trial is that in the comparison group (aspirin plus clopidogrel), when patients had bleeding, they might have stopped all antiplatelet therapy, and this may have led to more ischemic events, he speculated.

“The observed reduction in MACCE is plausible,” Dr. Han said. “However, according to study protocol, we assumed that clopidogrel monotherapy would be noninferior to DAPT on the risk of MACCE. The superiority of clopidogrel alone vs. DAPT on MACCE should therefore be hypothesis-generating.”

“The increased rate of MACCE in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group was surprising,” she said in a press release from the ESC, “and may be because hemorrhagic events, which are more common with ongoing DAPT, could be associated with an adrenergic state with increased platelet aggregation due to hypotension, remedial procedures to treat bleeding, and the cessation of anti-ischemic medications.”
 

A low-risk subset of bi-risk patients, commonly seen in clinical practice

At the time of the index ACS, more than 60% of the patients had unstable angina, Dr. Lopes observed, “and we know these patients are lower risk.” Also, more than 1,000 of the patients did not have at least one high-risk factor for bleeding or ischemia. Moreover, these patients had not had any clinical events in the past 9-12 months on DAPT, “so they were not truly high risk when they were randomized.

“Patients aged 75 years and above are definitely bi-risk (even without any bleeding/ischemic criteria), especially post ACS, according to much literature,” Dr. Han said.

“Although patients met the bi-risk criteria for increased ischemia and bleeding at the time of index ACS and PCI, they were free from major events for at least 6 months on DAPT, thus constituting a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients,” she conceded.

“Nonetheless, these patients (mean age nearly 65 years, 41% female, 52% diabetes, 18% MI history and 15% ischemic stroke history in bi-risk study) represent a large cohort seen in clinical practice,” she said. And “according to a real-world, nationwide registry from China (the OPT-CAD study), unstable angina accounted for about 50% of all ACS patients.”

There have been more data with shorter times for stopping aspirin, so it’s difficult to reconcile those studies with data from OPT-BIRISK, according to Dr. Lopes.

For example, the 2019 TWILIGHT study in patients undergoing PCI at high risk for bleeding showed that it seems to be safe to stop aspirin after 3 months and continue ticagrelor, without an increase in ischemic events.

“The question is almost in the wrong time,” he said, noting that the field is moving in the direction of stopping aspirin earlier, according to five or six recently published trials.

It is hard to generalize from an Asian population, he agreed. “In the U.S., we have other data that suggests that for high-risk patients, you can stop aspirin earlier than 9 months. That’s what most practices are doing.”

“When you look at different drugs, different doses, different duration,” Dr. Lopes summarized, “you have thousands of different permutations,” for antiplatelet therapy strategies. “Every time we have some data in large studies it adds a piece to the puzzle.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project in China, and by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other coauthors can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among “bi-risk” patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who received a stent and completed 9-12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), those who de-escalated therapy to clopidogrel alone as opposed to continuing on clopidogrel and aspirin for 9 months had 25% less bleeding without increased ischemic risk.

The findings are from the OPT-BIRISK trial in more than 7,700 patients in China deemed “bi-risk” because they had both a high risk of clinically relevant bleeding and a high risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE).

Yaling Han, MD, from General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, presented the trial in a hotline session at the annual congress of the  European Society of Cardiology.

The results provide evidence for this treatment strategy from “a large cohort seen in clinical practice in whom the question of continuing DAPT vs. deescalating to clopidogrel monotherapy at this time period has not previously been addressed,” Dr. Han said in an interview.

She acknowledged that the findings may not be generalizable to non-Asian cohorts. Also, these patients were event-free after 9 months on DAPT, so they were relatively stable. Moreover, the finding that clopidogrel monotherapy was superior to DAPT for MACCE is only hypothesis-generating.

Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., the assigned discussant at the session, congratulated the authors “for an important trial in the understudied East Asian population. The OPT-BIRISK trial adds information to the complex puzzle of antithrombotic therapy after ACS,” he said.

However, he brought up a few points that should be taken into consideration when interpreting this trial, including the ones noted by Dr. Han.

In an interview, Dr. Lopes cautioned that OPT-BIRISK tested an antiplatelet strategy “in challenging patients at increased risk for bleeding and ischemic events, but I don’t think we can say this is truly a high-risk population.” Invited to reply, Dr. Han conceded that these patients constituted a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients.
 

Double-edged sword

“Antiplatelet therapy is a double-edged sword: it reduces ischemic risk but increases bleeding risk. Optimal antiplatelet therapy for bi-risk ACS patients remains a clinical challenge, and unsolved problem for the cardiovascular physician,” Dr. Han said in a press briefing.

The rationale and design of OPT-BIRISK were published in the American Heart Journal in 2020.

Between February 2018 and December 2020, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 7,758 bi-risk patients in 101 centers in China who had completed 9-12 months of DAPT (aspirin plus either clopidogrel or ticagrelor) after drug-eluting stent implantation for ACS.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either clopidogrel plus aspirin or clopidogrel plus placebo for 9 months, followed by 3 months of aspirin.

The primary endpoint was clinically relevant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, at 9 months after randomization.

Key secondary endpoints were MACCE (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or clinically driven revascularization), individual components of MACCE, any bleeding, and stent thrombosis at 9 months after randomization.

The patient criteria for having bi-risk ACS were:

• < 65 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion and at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• 65-78 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion or at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• > 75 years old.

The high bleeding risk criteria were female gender, iron deficiency anemia, stroke, taking a type 2 diabetes medication, and chronic kidney disease.

The high ischemic risk criteria included troponin-positive ACS, previous stent thrombosis, previous CV events (MI, stroke, peripheral artery disease [PAD], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), on a type 2 diabetes medication, chronic kidney disease, and certain lesion characteristics.

The patients had a mean age of about 65 years and 41% were female. 

About half (52%) had type 2 diabetes, 18% had previous MI, and 15% had previous ischemic stroke. The ACS was mainly unstable angina (62%), followed by NSTEMI (17%) or STEMI (21%).

The patients had a mean high ischemic risk criteria of 3.2 and a mean high bleeding risk criteria of 1.4.

The initial DAPT treatment was aspirin and clopidogrel in three quarters of the patients and aspirin and ticagrelor in the remaining patients.

At 9 months, the primary endpoint of BARC type 2-5 bleeding occurred in 2.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.3% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97, P = .03).

“The bleeding results are not surprising,” Dr. Lopes said. Monotherapy vs. DAPT will cause less bleeding, Dr. Han agreed.

At 9 months, MACCE occurred in 2.6% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96, P = .02).

Interpreting this latter finding as “reduced risk” of MACCE “is a stretch,” Dr. Lopes cautioned.

A potential explanation for this finding in the trial is that in the comparison group (aspirin plus clopidogrel), when patients had bleeding, they might have stopped all antiplatelet therapy, and this may have led to more ischemic events, he speculated.

“The observed reduction in MACCE is plausible,” Dr. Han said. “However, according to study protocol, we assumed that clopidogrel monotherapy would be noninferior to DAPT on the risk of MACCE. The superiority of clopidogrel alone vs. DAPT on MACCE should therefore be hypothesis-generating.”

“The increased rate of MACCE in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group was surprising,” she said in a press release from the ESC, “and may be because hemorrhagic events, which are more common with ongoing DAPT, could be associated with an adrenergic state with increased platelet aggregation due to hypotension, remedial procedures to treat bleeding, and the cessation of anti-ischemic medications.”
 

A low-risk subset of bi-risk patients, commonly seen in clinical practice

At the time of the index ACS, more than 60% of the patients had unstable angina, Dr. Lopes observed, “and we know these patients are lower risk.” Also, more than 1,000 of the patients did not have at least one high-risk factor for bleeding or ischemia. Moreover, these patients had not had any clinical events in the past 9-12 months on DAPT, “so they were not truly high risk when they were randomized.

“Patients aged 75 years and above are definitely bi-risk (even without any bleeding/ischemic criteria), especially post ACS, according to much literature,” Dr. Han said.

“Although patients met the bi-risk criteria for increased ischemia and bleeding at the time of index ACS and PCI, they were free from major events for at least 6 months on DAPT, thus constituting a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients,” she conceded.

“Nonetheless, these patients (mean age nearly 65 years, 41% female, 52% diabetes, 18% MI history and 15% ischemic stroke history in bi-risk study) represent a large cohort seen in clinical practice,” she said. And “according to a real-world, nationwide registry from China (the OPT-CAD study), unstable angina accounted for about 50% of all ACS patients.”

There have been more data with shorter times for stopping aspirin, so it’s difficult to reconcile those studies with data from OPT-BIRISK, according to Dr. Lopes.

For example, the 2019 TWILIGHT study in patients undergoing PCI at high risk for bleeding showed that it seems to be safe to stop aspirin after 3 months and continue ticagrelor, without an increase in ischemic events.

“The question is almost in the wrong time,” he said, noting that the field is moving in the direction of stopping aspirin earlier, according to five or six recently published trials.

It is hard to generalize from an Asian population, he agreed. “In the U.S., we have other data that suggests that for high-risk patients, you can stop aspirin earlier than 9 months. That’s what most practices are doing.”

“When you look at different drugs, different doses, different duration,” Dr. Lopes summarized, “you have thousands of different permutations,” for antiplatelet therapy strategies. “Every time we have some data in large studies it adds a piece to the puzzle.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project in China, and by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other coauthors can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among “bi-risk” patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who received a stent and completed 9-12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), those who de-escalated therapy to clopidogrel alone as opposed to continuing on clopidogrel and aspirin for 9 months had 25% less bleeding without increased ischemic risk.

The findings are from the OPT-BIRISK trial in more than 7,700 patients in China deemed “bi-risk” because they had both a high risk of clinically relevant bleeding and a high risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE).

Yaling Han, MD, from General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China, presented the trial in a hotline session at the annual congress of the  European Society of Cardiology.

The results provide evidence for this treatment strategy from “a large cohort seen in clinical practice in whom the question of continuing DAPT vs. deescalating to clopidogrel monotherapy at this time period has not previously been addressed,” Dr. Han said in an interview.

She acknowledged that the findings may not be generalizable to non-Asian cohorts. Also, these patients were event-free after 9 months on DAPT, so they were relatively stable. Moreover, the finding that clopidogrel monotherapy was superior to DAPT for MACCE is only hypothesis-generating.

Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., the assigned discussant at the session, congratulated the authors “for an important trial in the understudied East Asian population. The OPT-BIRISK trial adds information to the complex puzzle of antithrombotic therapy after ACS,” he said.

However, he brought up a few points that should be taken into consideration when interpreting this trial, including the ones noted by Dr. Han.

In an interview, Dr. Lopes cautioned that OPT-BIRISK tested an antiplatelet strategy “in challenging patients at increased risk for bleeding and ischemic events, but I don’t think we can say this is truly a high-risk population.” Invited to reply, Dr. Han conceded that these patients constituted a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients.
 

Double-edged sword

“Antiplatelet therapy is a double-edged sword: it reduces ischemic risk but increases bleeding risk. Optimal antiplatelet therapy for bi-risk ACS patients remains a clinical challenge, and unsolved problem for the cardiovascular physician,” Dr. Han said in a press briefing.

The rationale and design of OPT-BIRISK were published in the American Heart Journal in 2020.

Between February 2018 and December 2020, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 7,758 bi-risk patients in 101 centers in China who had completed 9-12 months of DAPT (aspirin plus either clopidogrel or ticagrelor) after drug-eluting stent implantation for ACS.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either clopidogrel plus aspirin or clopidogrel plus placebo for 9 months, followed by 3 months of aspirin.

The primary endpoint was clinically relevant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, at 9 months after randomization.

Key secondary endpoints were MACCE (all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or clinically driven revascularization), individual components of MACCE, any bleeding, and stent thrombosis at 9 months after randomization.

The patient criteria for having bi-risk ACS were:

• < 65 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion and at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• 65-78 years old with at least one high-bleeding risk criterion or at least one high-ischemia risk criterion.
• > 75 years old.

The high bleeding risk criteria were female gender, iron deficiency anemia, stroke, taking a type 2 diabetes medication, and chronic kidney disease.

The high ischemic risk criteria included troponin-positive ACS, previous stent thrombosis, previous CV events (MI, stroke, peripheral artery disease [PAD], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), on a type 2 diabetes medication, chronic kidney disease, and certain lesion characteristics.

The patients had a mean age of about 65 years and 41% were female. 

About half (52%) had type 2 diabetes, 18% had previous MI, and 15% had previous ischemic stroke. The ACS was mainly unstable angina (62%), followed by NSTEMI (17%) or STEMI (21%).

The patients had a mean high ischemic risk criteria of 3.2 and a mean high bleeding risk criteria of 1.4.

The initial DAPT treatment was aspirin and clopidogrel in three quarters of the patients and aspirin and ticagrelor in the remaining patients.

At 9 months, the primary endpoint of BARC type 2-5 bleeding occurred in 2.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.3% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97, P = .03).

“The bleeding results are not surprising,” Dr. Lopes said. Monotherapy vs. DAPT will cause less bleeding, Dr. Han agreed.

At 9 months, MACCE occurred in 2.6% of patients in the clopidogrel plus placebo group and in 3.5% of patients in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96, P = .02).

Interpreting this latter finding as “reduced risk” of MACCE “is a stretch,” Dr. Lopes cautioned.

A potential explanation for this finding in the trial is that in the comparison group (aspirin plus clopidogrel), when patients had bleeding, they might have stopped all antiplatelet therapy, and this may have led to more ischemic events, he speculated.

“The observed reduction in MACCE is plausible,” Dr. Han said. “However, according to study protocol, we assumed that clopidogrel monotherapy would be noninferior to DAPT on the risk of MACCE. The superiority of clopidogrel alone vs. DAPT on MACCE should therefore be hypothesis-generating.”

“The increased rate of MACCE in the clopidogrel plus aspirin group was surprising,” she said in a press release from the ESC, “and may be because hemorrhagic events, which are more common with ongoing DAPT, could be associated with an adrenergic state with increased platelet aggregation due to hypotension, remedial procedures to treat bleeding, and the cessation of anti-ischemic medications.”
 

A low-risk subset of bi-risk patients, commonly seen in clinical practice

At the time of the index ACS, more than 60% of the patients had unstable angina, Dr. Lopes observed, “and we know these patients are lower risk.” Also, more than 1,000 of the patients did not have at least one high-risk factor for bleeding or ischemia. Moreover, these patients had not had any clinical events in the past 9-12 months on DAPT, “so they were not truly high risk when they were randomized.

“Patients aged 75 years and above are definitely bi-risk (even without any bleeding/ischemic criteria), especially post ACS, according to much literature,” Dr. Han said.

“Although patients met the bi-risk criteria for increased ischemia and bleeding at the time of index ACS and PCI, they were free from major events for at least 6 months on DAPT, thus constituting a relatively low-risk subset of bi-risk patients,” she conceded.

“Nonetheless, these patients (mean age nearly 65 years, 41% female, 52% diabetes, 18% MI history and 15% ischemic stroke history in bi-risk study) represent a large cohort seen in clinical practice,” she said. And “according to a real-world, nationwide registry from China (the OPT-CAD study), unstable angina accounted for about 50% of all ACS patients.”

There have been more data with shorter times for stopping aspirin, so it’s difficult to reconcile those studies with data from OPT-BIRISK, according to Dr. Lopes.

For example, the 2019 TWILIGHT study in patients undergoing PCI at high risk for bleeding showed that it seems to be safe to stop aspirin after 3 months and continue ticagrelor, without an increase in ischemic events.

“The question is almost in the wrong time,” he said, noting that the field is moving in the direction of stopping aspirin earlier, according to five or six recently published trials.

It is hard to generalize from an Asian population, he agreed. “In the U.S., we have other data that suggests that for high-risk patients, you can stop aspirin earlier than 9 months. That’s what most practices are doing.”

“When you look at different drugs, different doses, different duration,” Dr. Lopes summarized, “you have thousands of different permutations,” for antiplatelet therapy strategies. “Every time we have some data in large studies it adds a piece to the puzzle.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Project in China, and by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other coauthors can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – Calculating a patient’s myocardial performance index (MPI) and adding it to a standard risk-prediction model significantly increased prognostic accuracy for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), especially heart failure, in people with type 1 but not type 2 diabetes, an analysis of data from about 2,000 Danish patients shows.

“MPI provides incremental prognostic information” in people with type 1 diabetes that “may enhance risk prediction” for their future risk of all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or stroke, Hashmat S.Z. Bahrami, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The primary analysis he reported showed a significantly elevated adjusted hazard ratio of 1.2 among people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes and an elevated MPI, compared with those with diabetes but a lower MPI value.

Further analysis divided the study cohort into the 1,093 people with type 1 diabetes and the 1,030 with type 2 diabetes and showed that the significant association of elevated MPI with increased MACE was entirely confined to the type 1 diabetes subgroup, again with a hazard ratio of 1.2, but without any significant association among those with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bahrami, a cardiology researcher at Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

‘Trying to figure out’ the type 1 diabetes link

“We’re still trying to figure out” the explanation for this difference based on diabetes type, Dr. Bahrami said. He speculated that it might relate to a higher incidence of heart failure among those with type 1 diabetes, or to longer duration of diabetes in the type 1 subgroup.

The ability of elevated MPI to predict an increased risk specifically for heart failure was apparent in another analysis he presented that divided MACE events into the individual components of this composite. Elevated MPI significantly linked with a 1.3-fold elevated risk for heart failure in those with type 1 diabetes, but high MPI had no significant association with any of the other event types included in the MACE composite.

The researchers also assessed the incremental impact from adding MPI data to an established cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator for people with type 1 diabetes, the Steno Type 1 Risk Engine, which includes nine parameters such as age, sex, blood pressure, diabetes duration, and two different measures of renal function.

This analysis showed that adding MPI significantly boosted the attributable CVD risk from an area-under-the-curve of 0.77 to an AUC of 0.79. Including MPI also boosted the AUC for risk of future heart failure from 0.77 with the existing Steno Type 1 Risk Engine to 0.83, also a significant increase.

Simultaneously with his talk at the Congress, a report on the findings was published online in the European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging.
 

MPI reflects left ventricular function

MPI is calculated by adding a person’s isovolumic cardiac relaxation time to their isovolumic cardiac contraction time and dividing this by their ejection time. These time measurements come from examination with tissue Doppler M-mode echocardiography, Dr. Bahrami explained, and when assessed together reflect left ventricular function during both systolic and diastolic phases.

“MPI has been around for many years, but our technique is rather novel” and has high intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, he said. “It’s highly reproducible and feasible.”

The study included data collected prospectively from Danish adults without any known CVD enrolled in the Thousand & 1 study of people with type 1 diabetes and the Thousand & 2 study of people with type 2 diabetes. The analyses that Dr. Bahrami reported included CVD events during a median 5.3 years of follow-up.

The study received funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bahrami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – Calculating a patient’s myocardial performance index (MPI) and adding it to a standard risk-prediction model significantly increased prognostic accuracy for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), especially heart failure, in people with type 1 but not type 2 diabetes, an analysis of data from about 2,000 Danish patients shows.

“MPI provides incremental prognostic information” in people with type 1 diabetes that “may enhance risk prediction” for their future risk of all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or stroke, Hashmat S.Z. Bahrami, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The primary analysis he reported showed a significantly elevated adjusted hazard ratio of 1.2 among people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes and an elevated MPI, compared with those with diabetes but a lower MPI value.

Further analysis divided the study cohort into the 1,093 people with type 1 diabetes and the 1,030 with type 2 diabetes and showed that the significant association of elevated MPI with increased MACE was entirely confined to the type 1 diabetes subgroup, again with a hazard ratio of 1.2, but without any significant association among those with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bahrami, a cardiology researcher at Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

‘Trying to figure out’ the type 1 diabetes link

“We’re still trying to figure out” the explanation for this difference based on diabetes type, Dr. Bahrami said. He speculated that it might relate to a higher incidence of heart failure among those with type 1 diabetes, or to longer duration of diabetes in the type 1 subgroup.

The ability of elevated MPI to predict an increased risk specifically for heart failure was apparent in another analysis he presented that divided MACE events into the individual components of this composite. Elevated MPI significantly linked with a 1.3-fold elevated risk for heart failure in those with type 1 diabetes, but high MPI had no significant association with any of the other event types included in the MACE composite.

The researchers also assessed the incremental impact from adding MPI data to an established cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator for people with type 1 diabetes, the Steno Type 1 Risk Engine, which includes nine parameters such as age, sex, blood pressure, diabetes duration, and two different measures of renal function.

This analysis showed that adding MPI significantly boosted the attributable CVD risk from an area-under-the-curve of 0.77 to an AUC of 0.79. Including MPI also boosted the AUC for risk of future heart failure from 0.77 with the existing Steno Type 1 Risk Engine to 0.83, also a significant increase.

Simultaneously with his talk at the Congress, a report on the findings was published online in the European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging.
 

MPI reflects left ventricular function

MPI is calculated by adding a person’s isovolumic cardiac relaxation time to their isovolumic cardiac contraction time and dividing this by their ejection time. These time measurements come from examination with tissue Doppler M-mode echocardiography, Dr. Bahrami explained, and when assessed together reflect left ventricular function during both systolic and diastolic phases.

“MPI has been around for many years, but our technique is rather novel” and has high intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, he said. “It’s highly reproducible and feasible.”

The study included data collected prospectively from Danish adults without any known CVD enrolled in the Thousand & 1 study of people with type 1 diabetes and the Thousand & 2 study of people with type 2 diabetes. The analyses that Dr. Bahrami reported included CVD events during a median 5.3 years of follow-up.

The study received funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bahrami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – Calculating a patient’s myocardial performance index (MPI) and adding it to a standard risk-prediction model significantly increased prognostic accuracy for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), especially heart failure, in people with type 1 but not type 2 diabetes, an analysis of data from about 2,000 Danish patients shows.

“MPI provides incremental prognostic information” in people with type 1 diabetes that “may enhance risk prediction” for their future risk of all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or stroke, Hashmat S.Z. Bahrami, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The primary analysis he reported showed a significantly elevated adjusted hazard ratio of 1.2 among people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes and an elevated MPI, compared with those with diabetes but a lower MPI value.

Further analysis divided the study cohort into the 1,093 people with type 1 diabetes and the 1,030 with type 2 diabetes and showed that the significant association of elevated MPI with increased MACE was entirely confined to the type 1 diabetes subgroup, again with a hazard ratio of 1.2, but without any significant association among those with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bahrami, a cardiology researcher at Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

‘Trying to figure out’ the type 1 diabetes link

“We’re still trying to figure out” the explanation for this difference based on diabetes type, Dr. Bahrami said. He speculated that it might relate to a higher incidence of heart failure among those with type 1 diabetes, or to longer duration of diabetes in the type 1 subgroup.

The ability of elevated MPI to predict an increased risk specifically for heart failure was apparent in another analysis he presented that divided MACE events into the individual components of this composite. Elevated MPI significantly linked with a 1.3-fold elevated risk for heart failure in those with type 1 diabetes, but high MPI had no significant association with any of the other event types included in the MACE composite.

The researchers also assessed the incremental impact from adding MPI data to an established cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator for people with type 1 diabetes, the Steno Type 1 Risk Engine, which includes nine parameters such as age, sex, blood pressure, diabetes duration, and two different measures of renal function.

This analysis showed that adding MPI significantly boosted the attributable CVD risk from an area-under-the-curve of 0.77 to an AUC of 0.79. Including MPI also boosted the AUC for risk of future heart failure from 0.77 with the existing Steno Type 1 Risk Engine to 0.83, also a significant increase.

Simultaneously with his talk at the Congress, a report on the findings was published online in the European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging.
 

MPI reflects left ventricular function

MPI is calculated by adding a person’s isovolumic cardiac relaxation time to their isovolumic cardiac contraction time and dividing this by their ejection time. These time measurements come from examination with tissue Doppler M-mode echocardiography, Dr. Bahrami explained, and when assessed together reflect left ventricular function during both systolic and diastolic phases.

“MPI has been around for many years, but our technique is rather novel” and has high intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, he said. “It’s highly reproducible and feasible.”

The study included data collected prospectively from Danish adults without any known CVD enrolled in the Thousand & 1 study of people with type 1 diabetes and the Thousand & 2 study of people with type 2 diabetes. The analyses that Dr. Bahrami reported included CVD events during a median 5.3 years of follow-up.

The study received funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bahrami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

ODonoghue_Michelle_MASS_web2.jpg

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

ODonoghue_Michelle_MASS_web2.jpg

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

ODonoghue_Michelle_MASS_web2.jpg

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine role for intravascular imaging (IVI) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has long been favored by many of the technology’s researchers and enthusiasts. Now evidence from large, randomized trials may be catching up with such aspirations, though not without caveats.

Recently unveiled studies collectively suggest that such IVI guidance, at least for PCI of more challenging lesions, can improve the effectiveness of coronary stent delivery in ways that directly lead to better outcomes.

One way IVI guidance may achieve that, the research suggests, albeit more speculatively, is by cutting risk for stent thrombosis, compared with the risk associated with angiography-only PCI.

The new studies, two large randomized IVI trials plus a meta-analysis of 20 such studies, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In one, called ILUMIEN-4, PCI guided by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was associated with fewer procedural complications and better acute results – that is, larger post-PCI minimum stent area (MSA) – than in angiography-only procedures (P < .001). Poststenting MSA, an established predictor of clinical outcomes, was the primary imaging endpoint of the trial with almost 2,500 patients.

Yet the OCT group’s greater post-PCI MSA did not translate to reduced risk for the primary clinical endpoint of 2-year target-vessel failure. Among secondary endpoints, however, stent thrombosis at some point during the follow-up was 64% less likely (P = .02) with OCT guidance than angiography-only PCI.

ILUMIEN-4, despite its neutral clinical result, still “strongly advocates” for PCI guidance by OCT, at least among patients like those in the trial, said principal investigator Ziad Ali, MD, DPhil. He based that largely on the strategy’s greater postprocedure lumen areas in the trials, which are among “the strongest independent predictors for long term outcomes,” said Dr. Ali, of St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., at a press conference on IVI trials during the ESC Congress.
 

Selected complex lesion type

In contrast, the OCTOBER trial, presented at the sessions back to back with ILUMIEN-4, saw OCT guidance lead to better clinical outcomes than angiography alone after PCI of bifurcation lesions, which normally can be a special challenge for operators.

In the trial, which entered about 1,200 patients with such complex lesions, the 2-year risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) fell 60% after OCT-guided PCI, compared with angiography-only procedures (P = .035).

The finding is novel for showing that OCT guidance in bifurcation PCI can make a significant clinical difference, said OCTOBER investigator Niels R. Holm, MD, at the same media presentation on IVI trials.

“Multiple studies have shown that OCT allows for optimization of bifurcation PCI, and our results confirm that such optimization may improve the patient’s prognosis,” said Dr. Holm of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER, both of which prespecified the Xience (Abbott) everolimus-eluting stent for the procedures, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in tandem with their respective presentations at the ESC sessions.
 

Covering the spectrum

A meta-analysis presented at the same ESC session compared IVI using either OCT or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography-only PCI across 20 randomized trials with a total of more than 12,000 patients.

Significant outcomes for IVI guidance versus angiography alone included a 31% drop in risk for target-lesion failure, the primary endpoint. And this study, as well, showed a steep 52% reduction in risk for in-stent thrombosis with the IVI-guided approach.

Stone_Gregg_W_NYC_web.jpg

And “for the first time” in IVI studies, “we demonstrated reductions in all-myocardial-infarction and all-cause death, the latter by 25%,” Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in presenting the meta-analysis. Dr. Stone is also the ILUMIEN-4 study chairperson.

“The routine use of OCT or IVUS to guide most PCI procedures will substantially improve patient event-free survival,” he predicted, “enhancing both the long-term safety and effectiveness of the procedure.”

Dr. Stone said that IVI guidance “should be standard of care, if not in all patients, then in most patients.” Part of the rationale: PCI is unlikely to be improved much further by incremental gains in drug-eluting stent design. “That technology has almost plateaued.” But there’s yet room for “substantially improved outcomes” from adjunctive treatments and techniques such as IVI guidance.

The 20 studies in the meta-analysis encompassed an array of patients and lesions both complex and noncomplex, Dr. Stone observed, including bifurcation lesions, chronic total occlusions, left-main coronary stenoses, and MI culprit lesions.

“They really covered the spectrum of PCI,” he said. “I’m not recommending that intravascular imaging be used in every single case. But I do think it should be used in the majority of patients” and be standard of care for PCI in left-main lesions and “complex coronary disease, high-risk patients, and high-risk lesions.”
 

Unique advantage

The IVI-guidance groups in both ILUMIEN-4 and the meta-analysis showed a significant drop in risk for stent thrombosis – that is, abrupt thrombotic vessel closure, which typically occurs in 1% or fewer PCI cases but can trigger an MI and pose a mortality risk up to 45%.

Those risk reductions are consistent with a unique IVI advantage: the ability to guide optimization of stent deployments. When formally presenting ILUMIEN-4 at the ESC sessions, Ali observed that IVUS and OCT imaging allows operators to identify and often correct less-than-ideal results of an initial stent delivery – such as residual gaps between stent struts and vessel wall – that may encroach on the lumen, with possible clinical consequences.

Such imaging, said Dr. Ali, “lets you identify tissue protrusions, malappositions, dissections, and untreated reference-segment disease” that may potentially trigger thrombosis. That makes a strong argument for giving IVI guidance a more common, perhaps even routine role in PCI procedures.
 

Selling routine IVI-guided PCI in practice

“I think the study results are quite clear,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, as session comoderator following the OCTOBER presentation. “The challenge, though, will be convincing the average interventional cardiologist worldwide that it was specifically the imaging and not the extra care that the patient getting OCT also inherently receives.”

Bhatt_Deepak_web.jpg

Did OCT’s better trial outcomes stem from IVI itself or from greater operator attentiveness to procedural results – such as, for example, more high-pressure expansions to optimize stent placement, “the sort of thing that tends to occur when invasive imaging is added on to just plain old angiography?” Dr. Bhatt asked of Lene N. Andreasen, MD, who had just presented the OCTOBER trial. “There’s no way of uncoupling the two things.”

What can be said, “at this point, to convince interventional cardiologists that the extra time, energy, expense, is truly indicated,” that the data are “sufficient to change global practice?” asked Dr. Bhatt, Mount Sinai Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

That remains an open question,” acknowledged Dr. Andreasen of Aarhus University Hospital. The best argument in favor of selective IVI-guided PCI is that “we actually see a clinical benefit” in the trials. “But of course, it comes with a cost. It comes with longer procedures and more contrast.” How clinical practice responds to the new data remains to be seen, she proposed.
 

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER in detail

Conducted at 80 centers in 18 countries, ILUMIEN-4 randomly assigned patients with diabetes or complex coronary lesions to undergo PCI guided by OCT or using standard angiography only, 1,233 and 1,254 patients, respectively.

Post-PCI MSA averaged 5.72 mm² with OCT guidance and 5.36 mm² in the angiography-only group (P < .001).

Their rates of target-vessel failure at 2 years were not significantly different at 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 2-year composite endpoint included cardiac death, target vessel–related MI, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization.

Definite or probable stent thrombosis was observed over 2 years in 0.5% of the OCT group and 1.4% of those with angiography-only PCI (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.91; P = .02) favoring OCT.

The OCTOBER trial, conducted at 38 centers in Europe, entered 1201 patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes and angiographically identified complex bifurcation lesions. They involved the left-main coronary artery in about one-fifth of cases.

Patients were randomly assigned to bifurcation PCI guided by OCT or under standard angiography, 600 and 601 patients, respectively. Rates for procedure-related complications were similar at 6.8% and 5.7%, respectively.

Over a median of 2 years, 10.1% of the OCT group and 14.1% of angiography-only patients developed a MACE event, including cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization. The adjusted HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.98; P = .035) in favor of OCT.
 

Meta-analysis, trials to date

The meta-analysis presented by Dr. Stone included ILUMIEN-4, OCTOBER, and 18 earlier outcomes trials comparing PCI guided by IVI, either OCT or IVUS, and angiography-only PCI. It covered 12,428 patients with chronic or acute coronary disease and followed them a mean of 26 months; the longest follow-up was 5 years. They were assigned to IVI-guided or angiography-only PCI, 7,038 and 5,390 patients, respectively.

Dr. Stone and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of the 20 studies, that is, a combined analysis that allowed both direct and indirect comparisons of standard angiography-only procedures to each of the other studied comparator interventions including OCT, IVUS, and either OCT or IVUS. They then derived network-estimate odds ratios for IVI-guided PCI vs angiography-only procedures.

165089_table.PNG

“Hopefully, this will impact the guidelines,” Dr. Stone said of the meta-analysis. Procedures guided by IVI might become more common in clinical practice if they were to garner a Class-I guideline recommendation, the strongest recommendation category.

“That would make a difference, but we’d also need to work to remove impediments to increasing intravascular imaging guidance” for most patients undergoing PCI, he said, referring to challenges in obtaining reimbursement for IVI-guided PCI and training enough operators to handle the projected demand.

ILUMIEN-4 was funded by Abbott. OCTOBER was supported by grants from Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, and Aarhus University. The network meta-analysis received statistical support from Abbott. Dr. Ali disclosed institutional grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, Acist Medical, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, Opsens Medical, Philips, and Teleflex; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Philips, Shockwave; and holding equity in Elucid, Spectrawave, Shockwave, and VitalConnect. Dr. Holm and Dr. Bhatt reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Andreasen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine role for intravascular imaging (IVI) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has long been favored by many of the technology’s researchers and enthusiasts. Now evidence from large, randomized trials may be catching up with such aspirations, though not without caveats.

Recently unveiled studies collectively suggest that such IVI guidance, at least for PCI of more challenging lesions, can improve the effectiveness of coronary stent delivery in ways that directly lead to better outcomes.

One way IVI guidance may achieve that, the research suggests, albeit more speculatively, is by cutting risk for stent thrombosis, compared with the risk associated with angiography-only PCI.

The new studies, two large randomized IVI trials plus a meta-analysis of 20 such studies, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In one, called ILUMIEN-4, PCI guided by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was associated with fewer procedural complications and better acute results – that is, larger post-PCI minimum stent area (MSA) – than in angiography-only procedures (P < .001). Poststenting MSA, an established predictor of clinical outcomes, was the primary imaging endpoint of the trial with almost 2,500 patients.

Yet the OCT group’s greater post-PCI MSA did not translate to reduced risk for the primary clinical endpoint of 2-year target-vessel failure. Among secondary endpoints, however, stent thrombosis at some point during the follow-up was 64% less likely (P = .02) with OCT guidance than angiography-only PCI.

ILUMIEN-4, despite its neutral clinical result, still “strongly advocates” for PCI guidance by OCT, at least among patients like those in the trial, said principal investigator Ziad Ali, MD, DPhil. He based that largely on the strategy’s greater postprocedure lumen areas in the trials, which are among “the strongest independent predictors for long term outcomes,” said Dr. Ali, of St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., at a press conference on IVI trials during the ESC Congress.
 

Selected complex lesion type

In contrast, the OCTOBER trial, presented at the sessions back to back with ILUMIEN-4, saw OCT guidance lead to better clinical outcomes than angiography alone after PCI of bifurcation lesions, which normally can be a special challenge for operators.

In the trial, which entered about 1,200 patients with such complex lesions, the 2-year risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) fell 60% after OCT-guided PCI, compared with angiography-only procedures (P = .035).

The finding is novel for showing that OCT guidance in bifurcation PCI can make a significant clinical difference, said OCTOBER investigator Niels R. Holm, MD, at the same media presentation on IVI trials.

“Multiple studies have shown that OCT allows for optimization of bifurcation PCI, and our results confirm that such optimization may improve the patient’s prognosis,” said Dr. Holm of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER, both of which prespecified the Xience (Abbott) everolimus-eluting stent for the procedures, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in tandem with their respective presentations at the ESC sessions.
 

Covering the spectrum

A meta-analysis presented at the same ESC session compared IVI using either OCT or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography-only PCI across 20 randomized trials with a total of more than 12,000 patients.

Significant outcomes for IVI guidance versus angiography alone included a 31% drop in risk for target-lesion failure, the primary endpoint. And this study, as well, showed a steep 52% reduction in risk for in-stent thrombosis with the IVI-guided approach.

Stone_Gregg_W_NYC_web.jpg

And “for the first time” in IVI studies, “we demonstrated reductions in all-myocardial-infarction and all-cause death, the latter by 25%,” Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in presenting the meta-analysis. Dr. Stone is also the ILUMIEN-4 study chairperson.

“The routine use of OCT or IVUS to guide most PCI procedures will substantially improve patient event-free survival,” he predicted, “enhancing both the long-term safety and effectiveness of the procedure.”

Dr. Stone said that IVI guidance “should be standard of care, if not in all patients, then in most patients.” Part of the rationale: PCI is unlikely to be improved much further by incremental gains in drug-eluting stent design. “That technology has almost plateaued.” But there’s yet room for “substantially improved outcomes” from adjunctive treatments and techniques such as IVI guidance.

The 20 studies in the meta-analysis encompassed an array of patients and lesions both complex and noncomplex, Dr. Stone observed, including bifurcation lesions, chronic total occlusions, left-main coronary stenoses, and MI culprit lesions.

“They really covered the spectrum of PCI,” he said. “I’m not recommending that intravascular imaging be used in every single case. But I do think it should be used in the majority of patients” and be standard of care for PCI in left-main lesions and “complex coronary disease, high-risk patients, and high-risk lesions.”
 

Unique advantage

The IVI-guidance groups in both ILUMIEN-4 and the meta-analysis showed a significant drop in risk for stent thrombosis – that is, abrupt thrombotic vessel closure, which typically occurs in 1% or fewer PCI cases but can trigger an MI and pose a mortality risk up to 45%.

Those risk reductions are consistent with a unique IVI advantage: the ability to guide optimization of stent deployments. When formally presenting ILUMIEN-4 at the ESC sessions, Ali observed that IVUS and OCT imaging allows operators to identify and often correct less-than-ideal results of an initial stent delivery – such as residual gaps between stent struts and vessel wall – that may encroach on the lumen, with possible clinical consequences.

Such imaging, said Dr. Ali, “lets you identify tissue protrusions, malappositions, dissections, and untreated reference-segment disease” that may potentially trigger thrombosis. That makes a strong argument for giving IVI guidance a more common, perhaps even routine role in PCI procedures.
 

Selling routine IVI-guided PCI in practice

“I think the study results are quite clear,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, as session comoderator following the OCTOBER presentation. “The challenge, though, will be convincing the average interventional cardiologist worldwide that it was specifically the imaging and not the extra care that the patient getting OCT also inherently receives.”

Bhatt_Deepak_web.jpg

Did OCT’s better trial outcomes stem from IVI itself or from greater operator attentiveness to procedural results – such as, for example, more high-pressure expansions to optimize stent placement, “the sort of thing that tends to occur when invasive imaging is added on to just plain old angiography?” Dr. Bhatt asked of Lene N. Andreasen, MD, who had just presented the OCTOBER trial. “There’s no way of uncoupling the two things.”

What can be said, “at this point, to convince interventional cardiologists that the extra time, energy, expense, is truly indicated,” that the data are “sufficient to change global practice?” asked Dr. Bhatt, Mount Sinai Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

That remains an open question,” acknowledged Dr. Andreasen of Aarhus University Hospital. The best argument in favor of selective IVI-guided PCI is that “we actually see a clinical benefit” in the trials. “But of course, it comes with a cost. It comes with longer procedures and more contrast.” How clinical practice responds to the new data remains to be seen, she proposed.
 

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER in detail

Conducted at 80 centers in 18 countries, ILUMIEN-4 randomly assigned patients with diabetes or complex coronary lesions to undergo PCI guided by OCT or using standard angiography only, 1,233 and 1,254 patients, respectively.

Post-PCI MSA averaged 5.72 mm² with OCT guidance and 5.36 mm² in the angiography-only group (P < .001).

Their rates of target-vessel failure at 2 years were not significantly different at 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 2-year composite endpoint included cardiac death, target vessel–related MI, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization.

Definite or probable stent thrombosis was observed over 2 years in 0.5% of the OCT group and 1.4% of those with angiography-only PCI (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.91; P = .02) favoring OCT.

The OCTOBER trial, conducted at 38 centers in Europe, entered 1201 patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes and angiographically identified complex bifurcation lesions. They involved the left-main coronary artery in about one-fifth of cases.

Patients were randomly assigned to bifurcation PCI guided by OCT or under standard angiography, 600 and 601 patients, respectively. Rates for procedure-related complications were similar at 6.8% and 5.7%, respectively.

Over a median of 2 years, 10.1% of the OCT group and 14.1% of angiography-only patients developed a MACE event, including cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization. The adjusted HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.98; P = .035) in favor of OCT.
 

Meta-analysis, trials to date

The meta-analysis presented by Dr. Stone included ILUMIEN-4, OCTOBER, and 18 earlier outcomes trials comparing PCI guided by IVI, either OCT or IVUS, and angiography-only PCI. It covered 12,428 patients with chronic or acute coronary disease and followed them a mean of 26 months; the longest follow-up was 5 years. They were assigned to IVI-guided or angiography-only PCI, 7,038 and 5,390 patients, respectively.

Dr. Stone and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of the 20 studies, that is, a combined analysis that allowed both direct and indirect comparisons of standard angiography-only procedures to each of the other studied comparator interventions including OCT, IVUS, and either OCT or IVUS. They then derived network-estimate odds ratios for IVI-guided PCI vs angiography-only procedures.

165089_table.PNG

“Hopefully, this will impact the guidelines,” Dr. Stone said of the meta-analysis. Procedures guided by IVI might become more common in clinical practice if they were to garner a Class-I guideline recommendation, the strongest recommendation category.

“That would make a difference, but we’d also need to work to remove impediments to increasing intravascular imaging guidance” for most patients undergoing PCI, he said, referring to challenges in obtaining reimbursement for IVI-guided PCI and training enough operators to handle the projected demand.

ILUMIEN-4 was funded by Abbott. OCTOBER was supported by grants from Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, and Aarhus University. The network meta-analysis received statistical support from Abbott. Dr. Ali disclosed institutional grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, Acist Medical, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, Opsens Medical, Philips, and Teleflex; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Philips, Shockwave; and holding equity in Elucid, Spectrawave, Shockwave, and VitalConnect. Dr. Holm and Dr. Bhatt reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Andreasen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine role for intravascular imaging (IVI) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has long been favored by many of the technology’s researchers and enthusiasts. Now evidence from large, randomized trials may be catching up with such aspirations, though not without caveats.

Recently unveiled studies collectively suggest that such IVI guidance, at least for PCI of more challenging lesions, can improve the effectiveness of coronary stent delivery in ways that directly lead to better outcomes.

One way IVI guidance may achieve that, the research suggests, albeit more speculatively, is by cutting risk for stent thrombosis, compared with the risk associated with angiography-only PCI.

The new studies, two large randomized IVI trials plus a meta-analysis of 20 such studies, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In one, called ILUMIEN-4, PCI guided by optical coherence tomography (OCT) was associated with fewer procedural complications and better acute results – that is, larger post-PCI minimum stent area (MSA) – than in angiography-only procedures (P < .001). Poststenting MSA, an established predictor of clinical outcomes, was the primary imaging endpoint of the trial with almost 2,500 patients.

Yet the OCT group’s greater post-PCI MSA did not translate to reduced risk for the primary clinical endpoint of 2-year target-vessel failure. Among secondary endpoints, however, stent thrombosis at some point during the follow-up was 64% less likely (P = .02) with OCT guidance than angiography-only PCI.

ILUMIEN-4, despite its neutral clinical result, still “strongly advocates” for PCI guidance by OCT, at least among patients like those in the trial, said principal investigator Ziad Ali, MD, DPhil. He based that largely on the strategy’s greater postprocedure lumen areas in the trials, which are among “the strongest independent predictors for long term outcomes,” said Dr. Ali, of St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., at a press conference on IVI trials during the ESC Congress.
 

Selected complex lesion type

In contrast, the OCTOBER trial, presented at the sessions back to back with ILUMIEN-4, saw OCT guidance lead to better clinical outcomes than angiography alone after PCI of bifurcation lesions, which normally can be a special challenge for operators.

In the trial, which entered about 1,200 patients with such complex lesions, the 2-year risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) fell 60% after OCT-guided PCI, compared with angiography-only procedures (P = .035).

The finding is novel for showing that OCT guidance in bifurcation PCI can make a significant clinical difference, said OCTOBER investigator Niels R. Holm, MD, at the same media presentation on IVI trials.

“Multiple studies have shown that OCT allows for optimization of bifurcation PCI, and our results confirm that such optimization may improve the patient’s prognosis,” said Dr. Holm of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER, both of which prespecified the Xience (Abbott) everolimus-eluting stent for the procedures, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in tandem with their respective presentations at the ESC sessions.
 

Covering the spectrum

A meta-analysis presented at the same ESC session compared IVI using either OCT or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography-only PCI across 20 randomized trials with a total of more than 12,000 patients.

Significant outcomes for IVI guidance versus angiography alone included a 31% drop in risk for target-lesion failure, the primary endpoint. And this study, as well, showed a steep 52% reduction in risk for in-stent thrombosis with the IVI-guided approach.

Stone_Gregg_W_NYC_web.jpg

And “for the first time” in IVI studies, “we demonstrated reductions in all-myocardial-infarction and all-cause death, the latter by 25%,” Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in presenting the meta-analysis. Dr. Stone is also the ILUMIEN-4 study chairperson.

“The routine use of OCT or IVUS to guide most PCI procedures will substantially improve patient event-free survival,” he predicted, “enhancing both the long-term safety and effectiveness of the procedure.”

Dr. Stone said that IVI guidance “should be standard of care, if not in all patients, then in most patients.” Part of the rationale: PCI is unlikely to be improved much further by incremental gains in drug-eluting stent design. “That technology has almost plateaued.” But there’s yet room for “substantially improved outcomes” from adjunctive treatments and techniques such as IVI guidance.

The 20 studies in the meta-analysis encompassed an array of patients and lesions both complex and noncomplex, Dr. Stone observed, including bifurcation lesions, chronic total occlusions, left-main coronary stenoses, and MI culprit lesions.

“They really covered the spectrum of PCI,” he said. “I’m not recommending that intravascular imaging be used in every single case. But I do think it should be used in the majority of patients” and be standard of care for PCI in left-main lesions and “complex coronary disease, high-risk patients, and high-risk lesions.”
 

Unique advantage

The IVI-guidance groups in both ILUMIEN-4 and the meta-analysis showed a significant drop in risk for stent thrombosis – that is, abrupt thrombotic vessel closure, which typically occurs in 1% or fewer PCI cases but can trigger an MI and pose a mortality risk up to 45%.

Those risk reductions are consistent with a unique IVI advantage: the ability to guide optimization of stent deployments. When formally presenting ILUMIEN-4 at the ESC sessions, Ali observed that IVUS and OCT imaging allows operators to identify and often correct less-than-ideal results of an initial stent delivery – such as residual gaps between stent struts and vessel wall – that may encroach on the lumen, with possible clinical consequences.

Such imaging, said Dr. Ali, “lets you identify tissue protrusions, malappositions, dissections, and untreated reference-segment disease” that may potentially trigger thrombosis. That makes a strong argument for giving IVI guidance a more common, perhaps even routine role in PCI procedures.
 

Selling routine IVI-guided PCI in practice

“I think the study results are quite clear,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, as session comoderator following the OCTOBER presentation. “The challenge, though, will be convincing the average interventional cardiologist worldwide that it was specifically the imaging and not the extra care that the patient getting OCT also inherently receives.”

Bhatt_Deepak_web.jpg

Did OCT’s better trial outcomes stem from IVI itself or from greater operator attentiveness to procedural results – such as, for example, more high-pressure expansions to optimize stent placement, “the sort of thing that tends to occur when invasive imaging is added on to just plain old angiography?” Dr. Bhatt asked of Lene N. Andreasen, MD, who had just presented the OCTOBER trial. “There’s no way of uncoupling the two things.”

What can be said, “at this point, to convince interventional cardiologists that the extra time, energy, expense, is truly indicated,” that the data are “sufficient to change global practice?” asked Dr. Bhatt, Mount Sinai Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

That remains an open question,” acknowledged Dr. Andreasen of Aarhus University Hospital. The best argument in favor of selective IVI-guided PCI is that “we actually see a clinical benefit” in the trials. “But of course, it comes with a cost. It comes with longer procedures and more contrast.” How clinical practice responds to the new data remains to be seen, she proposed.
 

ILUMIEN-4 and OCTOBER in detail

Conducted at 80 centers in 18 countries, ILUMIEN-4 randomly assigned patients with diabetes or complex coronary lesions to undergo PCI guided by OCT or using standard angiography only, 1,233 and 1,254 patients, respectively.

Post-PCI MSA averaged 5.72 mm² with OCT guidance and 5.36 mm² in the angiography-only group (P < .001).

Their rates of target-vessel failure at 2 years were not significantly different at 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 2-year composite endpoint included cardiac death, target vessel–related MI, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization.

Definite or probable stent thrombosis was observed over 2 years in 0.5% of the OCT group and 1.4% of those with angiography-only PCI (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.91; P = .02) favoring OCT.

The OCTOBER trial, conducted at 38 centers in Europe, entered 1201 patients with stable angina or acute coronary syndromes and angiographically identified complex bifurcation lesions. They involved the left-main coronary artery in about one-fifth of cases.

Patients were randomly assigned to bifurcation PCI guided by OCT or under standard angiography, 600 and 601 patients, respectively. Rates for procedure-related complications were similar at 6.8% and 5.7%, respectively.

Over a median of 2 years, 10.1% of the OCT group and 14.1% of angiography-only patients developed a MACE event, including cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization. The adjusted HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.98; P = .035) in favor of OCT.
 

Meta-analysis, trials to date

The meta-analysis presented by Dr. Stone included ILUMIEN-4, OCTOBER, and 18 earlier outcomes trials comparing PCI guided by IVI, either OCT or IVUS, and angiography-only PCI. It covered 12,428 patients with chronic or acute coronary disease and followed them a mean of 26 months; the longest follow-up was 5 years. They were assigned to IVI-guided or angiography-only PCI, 7,038 and 5,390 patients, respectively.

Dr. Stone and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of the 20 studies, that is, a combined analysis that allowed both direct and indirect comparisons of standard angiography-only procedures to each of the other studied comparator interventions including OCT, IVUS, and either OCT or IVUS. They then derived network-estimate odds ratios for IVI-guided PCI vs angiography-only procedures.

165089_table.PNG

“Hopefully, this will impact the guidelines,” Dr. Stone said of the meta-analysis. Procedures guided by IVI might become more common in clinical practice if they were to garner a Class-I guideline recommendation, the strongest recommendation category.

“That would make a difference, but we’d also need to work to remove impediments to increasing intravascular imaging guidance” for most patients undergoing PCI, he said, referring to challenges in obtaining reimbursement for IVI-guided PCI and training enough operators to handle the projected demand.

ILUMIEN-4 was funded by Abbott. OCTOBER was supported by grants from Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, and Aarhus University. The network meta-analysis received statistical support from Abbott. Dr. Ali disclosed institutional grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, Acist Medical, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, the National Institutes of Health, Opsens Medical, Philips, and Teleflex; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Philips, Shockwave; and holding equity in Elucid, Spectrawave, Shockwave, and VitalConnect. Dr. Holm and Dr. Bhatt reported numerous conflicts of interest. Dr. Andreasen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

165044_graph01_web.jpg

165044_graph02_web.jpg

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

165044_graph01_web.jpg

165044_graph02_web.jpg

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Switching frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) from anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) resulted in more bleeding without any reduction in thromboembolic complications or all-cause mortality, randomized trial results show.

The study, FRAIL-AF, is the first randomized NOAC trial to exclusively include frail older patients, said lead author Linda P.T. Joosten, MD, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and these unexpected findings provide evidence that goes beyond what is currently available.

“Data from the FRAIL-AF trial showed that switching from a VKA to a NOAC should not be considered without a clear indication in frail older patients with AF[ib], as switching to a NOAC leads to 69% more bleeding,” she concluded, without any benefit on secondary clinical endpoints, including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality.

“The results turned out different than we expected,” Dr. Joosten said. “The hypothesis of this superiority trial was that switching from VKA therapy to a NOAC would result in less bleeding. However, we observed the opposite. After the interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised to stop inclusion because switching from a VKA to a NOAC was clearly contraindicated with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a highly significant P value of .001.”

Results of FRAIL-AF were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published online in the journal Circulation.

Session moderator Renate B. Schnabel, MD, interventional cardiologist with University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), congratulated the researchers on these “astonishing” data.

“The thing I want to emphasize here is that, in the absence of randomized controlled trial data, we should be very cautious in extrapolating data from the landmark trials to populations not enrolled in those, and to rely on observational data only,” Dr. Schnabel told Dr. Joosten. “We need randomized controlled trials that sometimes give astonishing results.”
 

Frailty a clinical syndrome

Frailty is “a lot more than just aging, multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy,” Dr. Joosten explained. “It’s really a clinical syndrome, with people with a high biological vulnerability, dependency on significant others, and a reduced capacity to resist stressors, all leading to a reduced homeostatic reserve.”

Frailty is common in the community, with a prevalence of about 12%, she noted, “and even more important, AF[ib] in frail older people is very common, with a prevalence of 18%. And “without any doubt, we have to adequately anticoagulate frail AF[ib] patients, as they have a high stroke risk, with an incidence of 12.4% per year,” Dr. Joosten noted, compared with 3.9% per year among nonfrail AFib patients.

NOACs are preferred over VKAs in nonfrail AFib patients, after four major trials, RE-LY with dabigatran, ROCKET-AF with rivaroxaban, ARISTOTLE with apixaban, and ENGAGE-AF with edoxaban, showed that NOAC treatment resulted in less major bleeding while stroke risk was comparable with treatment with warfarin, she noted.

The 2023 European Heart Rhythm Association consensus document on management of arrhythmias in frailty syndrome concludes that the advantages of NOACs relative to VKAs are “likely consistent” in frail and nonfrail AFib patients, but the level of evidence is low.  

So it’s unknown if NOACs are preferred over VKAs in frail AFib patients, “and it’s even more questionable whether patients on VKAs should switch to NOAC therapy,” Dr. Joosten said.

This new trial aimed to answer the question of whether switching frail AFib patients currently managed on a VKA to a NOAC would reduce bleeding. FRAIL-AF was a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled superiority trial.

Older AFib patients were deemed frail if they were aged 75 years or older and had a score of 3 or more on the validated Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Patients with a glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or with valvular AFib were excluded.

Eligible patients were then assigned randomly to switch from their international normalized ratio (INR)–guided VKA treatment with either 1 mg acenocoumarol or 3 mg phenprocoumon, to a NOAC, or to continue VKA treatment. They were followed for 12 months for the primary outcome – major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first – accounting for death as a competing risk.

A total of 1,330 patients were randomly assigned between January 2018 and June 2022. Their mean age was 83 years, and they had a median GFI of 4. After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm, and 1 in the continue-VKA arm were found to have exclusion criteria, so in the end, 662 patients were switched from a VKA to NOAC, while 661 continued on VKA therapy. The choice of NOAC was made by the treating physician.

Major bleeding was defined as a fatal bleeding; bleeding in a critical area or organ; bleeding leading to transfusion; and/or bleeding leading to a fall in hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL (1.24 mmol/L) or more. Nonmajor bleeding was bleeding not considered major but requiring face-to-face consultation, hospitalization or increased level of care, or medical intervention.

After a prespecified futility analysis planned after 163 primary outcome events, the trial was halted when it was seen that there were 101 primary outcome events in the switch arm compared to 62 in the continue arm, Dr. Joosten said. The difference appeared to be driven by clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

165044_graph01_web.jpg

165044_graph02_web.jpg

Completely different patients

Discussant at the meeting for the presentation was Isabelle C. Van Gelder, MD, University Medical Centre Groningen (the Netherlands). She said the results are important and relevant because it “provides data on an important gap of knowledge in our AF[ib] guidelines, and a note for all the cardiologists – this study was not done in the hospital. This trial was done in general practitioner practices, so that’s important to consider.”

Comparing FRAIL-AF patients with those of the four previous NOAC trials, “you see that enormous difference in age,” with an average age of 83 years versus 70-73 years in those trials. “These are completely different patients than have been included previously,” she said.

That GFI score of 4 or more includes patients on four or more different types of medication, as well as memory complaints, an inability to walk around the house, and problems with vision or hearing.

The finding of a 69% increase in bleeding with NOACs in FRAIL-AF was “completely unexpected, and I think that we as cardiologists and as NOAC believers did not expect it at all, but it is as clear as it is.” The curves don’t diverge immediately, but rather after 3 months or thereafter, “so it has nothing to do with the switching process. So why did it occur?”

The Netherlands has dedicated thrombosis services that might improve time in therapeutic range for VKA patients, but there is no real difference in TTRs in FRAIL-AF versus the other NOAC trials, Dr. Van Gelder noted.

The most likely suspect in her view is frailty itself, in particular the tendency for patients to be on a high number of medications. A previous study showed, for example, that polypharmacy could be used as a proxy for the effect of frailty on bleeding risk; patients on 10 or more medications had a higher risk for bleeding on treatment with rivaroxaban versus those on 4 or fewer medications.

“Therefore, in my view, why was there such a high risk of bleeding? It’s because these are other patients than we are normally used to treat, we as cardiologists,” although general practitioners see these patients all the time. “It’s all about frailty.”

NOACs are still relatively new drugs, with possible unknown interactions, she added. Because of their frailty and polypharmacy, these patients may benefit from INR control, Dr. Van Gelder speculated. “Therefore, I agree with them that we should be careful; if such old, frail patients survive on VKA, do not change medications and do not switch!”

The study was supported by the Dutch government with additional and unrestricted educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS-Pfizer, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Joosten reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Van Gelder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.