Heart Failure

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

Use of a combination antihypertensive product containing quarter doses of four different drugs could be an effective strategy to get patients to target blood pressures in one step, a new study suggests. 

The study, QUARTET-USA, showed a reduction in BP of almost 5 mm Hg more than the comparator of one antihypertensive agent at standard dose over the 12-week follow-up period in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

The QUARTET-USA study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Mark Huffman, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. 

It builds on a previous trial, QUARTET, conducted in Australia, which first showed benefits with this approach.

In the new U.S. study, which was considerably smaller than the Australian trial, the four-drug combination, including candesartan, amlodipine, indapamide, and bisoprolol, led to a –4.8/–4.9 mm Hg greater reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks, compared with standard-dose candesartan monotherapy.

Differences in systolic BP were not statistically significant, which is likely because of limited power related to the sample size, Dr. Huffman noted.

Adverse events were more common in the four-drug intervention group, but the rate of discontinuation was higher in the comparator group. No severe adverse events were deemed related to the study drug.

“The direction and magnitude of [the] blood pressure–lowering effect were similar between the previous Australian study and this American study, despite different populations with lower baseline blood pressure in the current study, thus strengthening the case for this new approach,” Dr. Huffman concluded.

“The two studies together show that the approach of using four drugs in quarter doses is more effective in lowering blood pressure than a single standard dose antihypertensive agent and has an acceptable safely profile,” he said in an interview.

He said the four-drug combination could be an effective way of getting patients to target without multiple appointments.

“If you think about how many visits to the doctor’s office it takes to get patients to goal blood pressures, this combination gets patients down to new guideline target levels in one step, whereas in the SPRINT trial it took three or more visits to get down to these levels. And in practice we lose people – they don’t come back,” he said.

Dr. Huffman explained that the rationale for the study was the persistently low hypertension control rate, which demonstrates the need for a new approach.

The previous Australian QUARTET study suggested that ultra–low-dose combination therapy has a favorable balance between blood pressure–lowering effect, tolerability, and adherence.

That study, conducted in 591 patients and reported in 2021, demonstrated a greater BP-lowering effect with a four-drug combination at quarter doses (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) at 12 weeks, compared with irbesartan 150 mg daily. Systolic BP was reduced by more than 6.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 5.8 mm Hg than full-dose irbesartan alone, both significant differences.

The current study, QUARTET-USA, aimed to see if a similar strategy could produce comparable results in a U.S. population.

The U.S. study included 62 patients from the Access Community Health Network, Chicago, who were either treatment naive with BPs above 140/90 mm Hg, or already taking antihypertensive monotherapy with BPs above 130/85 mm Hg.

The mean systolic BP at baseline was 138 mm Hg and the mean diastolic pressure was 84 mm Hg.

Study participants were mainly from ethnic minorities (90% Hispanic or Black) and over half were from low-income households (annual household income less than $25,000).

They were randomly assigned to daily administration of a four-drug combination at quarter doses (candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or a full dose of candesartan 8 mg (the comparator arm).

Amlodipine 5 mg daily could be added on to treatment if BP remained above 130/80 mm Hg at 6 weeks. This occurred in 18% of the study group versus 53% of the comparator group.

Results showed that at 12 weeks the adjusted mean change in systolic BP weeks was –4.8 mm Hg (95% CI,–10.7 to 1.2), and the adjusted mean change in diastolic BP was –4.9 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.6 to –1.1) in the four-drug combination group, compared with the comparator arm.

Average BPs at the end of 12-week study period were 121 mm Hg systolic and 73 mm Hg diastolic in the four-drug intervention group, compared with 124 mm Hg systolic and 77 mm Hg diastolic in the comparator group.

Any adverse events that were possibly related to drug therapy occurred in 25% of the intervention group versus 10% of the comparator group. But adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.3% of the study group versus 26.7% of patients in the comparator arm.

“New approaches are needed to achieve lower blood pressure targets, especially for patients and communities with a high burden of hypertension and hypertension-related diseases. QUARTET-USA was the first trial of a four-drug, ultra–low-dose, blood pressure–lowering combination therapy in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said.

“We showed reductions in blood pressure similar in magnitude to those in the Australian study. It is useful to know that the direction of the effect is similar across varied populations. Now that we have that signal of efficacy and tolerability, we can move to actually getting it into the hands of patients and providers,” he added.

Noting that further studies will be required to attain marketing authorization, Dr. Huffman suggested that a pharmaceutical company would need to complete that process.

“These are promising results for companies who may be interested in partnering,” he said.

‘A more efficient approach’ 

LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and discussant of the study, said the QUARTET-USA study suggests the four-drug, low-dose combination shows promise in lowering BP, compared with the standard dose, and while the reduction in systolic BP was not quite significant, it was clinically meaningful.

“Most U.S. adults with hypertension do not have it under control. This is due to unfavorable social and structural determinants of health which limit adherence to antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Brewer noted.  

From a patient point of view, the multiple visits needed to attain goals are a burden and there is also the issue of clinical inertia and lack of medication intensification by clinicians, she commented. 

“Of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 40% are taking just one antihypertensive medication, so up-front, low-dose combination therapy is likely a more efficient approach,” she said.

“This study builds the evidence base for the need for tailored interventions that address the social determinants of health and the intentional prioritization of diverse population in clinical trials,” Dr. Brewer concluded.

QUARTET was an investigator-initiated study, Dr. Huffman reported a pending patent for a heart failure polypill. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, where Huffman has a secondary appointment, has a patent, license, and has received investment funding with intent to commercialize fixed-dose combination therapy. Dr. Brewer reported research support from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the investigational CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy, NTLA-2001, led to rapid responses in patients with transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), interim phase 1 results show.

Serum levels of the disease-causing TTR protein were reduced by at least 90% at day 28 with a single infusion of NTLA-2001 at two different doses, with reductions sustained across 4-6 months’ follow-up.

NTLA-2001 was generally well-tolerated, and the results were similar in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I-III heart failure.

“These data further support and extend the early findings demonstrating the promise of CRISPR-based in vivo genome editing in humans,” said Julian Gillmore, MD, PhD, MBBS, who is leading the study at University College London.

“More specifically, the deep TTR reductions observed in patients with ATTR amyloidosis in this study provide a real possibility of genuine clinical improvement in a condition that has hitherto been ultimately progressive and invariably fatal,” he said.

The results were reported in a late-breaking session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mutations in the TTR gene and age-related changes in the stability of the TTR protein can cause misfolding of the TTR protein, resulting in amyloid deposits in skin and myocardial tissues.

An estimated 50,000 people worldwide are thought to have hereditary ATTR and up to 500,000 to have wild-type ATTR amyloidosis. Amyloid cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed and fatal in 3-10 years without treatment. Current treatment options only slow progression and require lifelong administration, he said.

Results reported last year from the polyneuropathy arm of the study were hailed as a breakthrough and further proof-of-concept that CRISPR could be used to treat other diseases

CRISPR gene editing has shown success, for example, in beta-thalassemia and sickle cell disease but involved stem cells extracted from patients’ bone marrow, edited in the lab, and then replaced.

NTLA-2001 (Intellia Therapeutics/Regeneron) is an in vivo treatment that uses lipid nanoparticles containing messenger RNA for Cas9 and a single-guide RNA targeting TTR in the liver, where it’s almost exclusively produced.

The new analysis included 12 patients with heart failure: 3 in NYHA  class I-II and 6 in NYHA class III who received a single dose of NTLA-2001 at 0.7 mg/kg, while the remaining 3 patients in NYHA class I-II received a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg.

During follow-up out to 6 months, TTR reductions averaged:

• 93% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 6 months.
• 94% in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA III group at 4 months.
• 92% in the 1.0 mg/kg NYHA I-II group at 4 months.

Eight patients reported mild or moderate adverse events, and two patients experienced transient infusion reactions, including one grade 3 reaction in the 0.7 mg/kg NYHA class III group that resolved without clinical consequence. This group was expanded to six patients per study protocol. No additional treatment-related adverse events higher than grade 1 were reported, and no further dose escalation was undertaken, Dr. Gillmore reported.

There were no clinically relevant laboratory findings; one patient had a transient grade 1 liver enzyme elevation.

One disadvantage of CRISPR is the potential for off-target effects, but Dr. Gillmore said in an interview that the drug developers went through a “very rigorous process when selecting the guide RNA, which is what really targets the specificity of the TTR gene.”

“That’s a really, really important point,” he said. “When they did various studies using, for example, primary human hepatocytes, they found no evidence of off-target editing at concentrations of NTLA-2001 threefold greater than the EC90, the concentration at which one knocks down the protein by 90%. So, what we can say at the moment, is the specificity of NTLA-2001 for the TTR gene seems to be absolute.”

In terms of other challenges going forward, Dr. Gillmore added, “I think that it’s really to see whether the knockdown that is being achieved is going to translate into greater clinical benefit.”

Invited discussant Kevin M. Alexander, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, said therapies that stabilize or reduce TTR have recently emerged that have improved ATTR amyloidosis outcomes, including tafamidis and patisiran.

Nevertheless, there has been an unmet need to develop therapies that can halt or reverse disease, are effective in advanced ATTR, and have an improved route or frequency of administration, given that this is a chronic disease, he said.

Dr. Alexander noted that the reductions of greater than 90% were achieved with higher doses than used in the polyneuropathy arm reported last year but were well tolerated in patients that for the most part had wild-type ATTR (83%) and reflect the wild-type ATTR population in practice. “The data support consideration for subsequent efficacy trials for this compound.”

Unanswered questions in ongoing ATTR trials are whether TTR reductions translate into improved clinical outcomes, the long-term safety of TTR lowering, and the efficacy of NTLA-2001, particularly in higher-risk patients, such as those in NYHA class III and those with hereditary ATTR, Dr. Alexander said.

During a media briefing earlier in the day, invited discussant Kiran Musunuru, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that, in the recent APOLLO-B trial of patisiran, patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy had an average 87% TTR reduction but need intravenous infusions every 3 weeks for the rest of their lives.

“In contrast, gene editing is a one-and-done proposition,” he said. “You receive a single treatment that turns off the TTR gene permanently and the effects are durable and likely last a lifetime.”

Dr. Musunuru noted that patients who received patisiran also had significantly and substantially better functional capacity and quality of life, compared with those who received placebo. “Based on today’s results, we can expect future clinical trials for gene editing to have the same beneficial effects and possibly a mortality benefit as well.”

Today’s study is also important because it is part of the first wave of putting CRISPR into the body for an array of diseases, he commented.

“TTR gene editing stands out because it’s the very first CRISPR trial to show unequivocal success – you see that with a greater than 90% reduction in TTR,” Dr. Musunuru said. “So, in my view that makes it a milestone for modern medicine.”

Dosing at 55 mg, corresponding to a fixed 0.7 mg/kg dose, is ongoing in the dose-expansion portion of the trial, with enrollment across both arms expected to be completed by the end of 2022, Intellia Therapeutics reported.

The study was funded by Intellia Therapeutics and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Gillmore reports receiving consultancy fees from Alnylam, Ionis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Intellia, ATTRalus, and Novo Nordisk and has received grant support from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Alexander reports serving on advisory boards for Almylam and Arbor Biotechnologies; has consulted  for Eidos, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has received grants from AHA, Alnylam, Eidos, and the National Institutes of Health.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – The choice of loop diuretic for decongestion in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) may make little difference to survival or readmission risk over the next year, at least when deciding between furosemide or torsemide, a randomized trial suggests.

Both drugs are old and widely used, but differences between the two loop diuretics in bioavailability, effects on potassium levels, and other features have led some clinicians to sometimes prefer torsemide. Until now, however, no randomized HF trials have compared the two drugs.

The new findings suggest clinicians can continue starting such patients with HF on either agent, at their discretion, without concern that the choice may compromise outcomes, say researchers from the TRANSFORM-HF trial, which compared furosemide-first and torsemide-first diuretic strategies in a diverse population of patients with HF.

Given that the two strategies were similarly effective for survival and rehospitalization, clinicians caring for patients with HF can focus more on “getting patients on the right dose for their loop diuretic, and prioritizing those therapies proven to improve clinical outcomes,” said Robert J. Mentz, MD, of Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz, a TRANSFORM-HF principal investigator, presented the primary results November 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The trial had randomly assigned 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF and with a plan for oral loop diuretic therapy to initiate treatment with furosemide or torsemide. Clinicians were encouraged to maintain patients on the assigned diuretic, but crossovers to the other drug or other diuretic changes were allowed.

Rates of death from any cause, the primary endpoint, were about 26% in both groups over a median 17-month follow-up, regardless of ejection fraction (EF).

The composite rates of all-cause death or hospitalization at 12 months were also not significantly different, about 49% for those started on furosemide and about 47% for patients initially prescribed torsemide.

As a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial, TRANSFORM-HF entered diverse patients with HF, broadly representative of actual clinical practice, who were managed according to routine practice and a streamlined study protocol at more than 60 U.S. centers, Dr. Mentz observed.

One of the pragmatic design’s advantages, he told this news organization, was “how efficient it was” as a randomized comparison of treatment strategies for clinical outcomes. It was “relatively low cost” and recruited patients quickly, compared with conventional randomized trials, “and we answered the question clearly.” The trial’s results, Dr. Mentz said, reflect “what happens in the real world.”

When might torsemide have the edge?

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in HF, and there are others besides it and torsemide, the latter has both known and theoretical advantages that set it apart. Torsemide is more than twice as potent as furosemide and more bioavailable, and its treatment effect lasts longer, the TRANSFORM-HF investigators have noted.

In addition, preclinical and small clinical studies suggest torsemide may have pleiotropic effects that might be theoretical advantages for patients with HF. For example, it appears to downregulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and reduce myocardial fibrosis and promote reverse ventricular remodeling, the group writes.

In practice, therefore, torsemide may be preferred in patients with furosemide resistance or “challenges with bioavailability, especially those with very advanced heart failure with congestion who may have gut edema, where oral furosemide and other loop diuretics are not effectively absorbed,” Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.  

In such patients, she said, torsemide “is considered to be a better choice  for individuals who have diuretic resistance with advanced congestion.”

The drug’s apparent pleiotropic effects, such as RAAS inhibition, may have less relevance to the TRANSFORM-HF primary endpoint of all-cause mortality than to clinical outcomes more likely associated with successful decongestion, such as HF hospitalization, Dr. Bozkurt proposed.

The trial’s pragmatic design, however, made it more feasible to focus on all-cause mortality and less practical to use measures of successful decongestion, such as volume loss or reduction in natriuretic peptide levels, she observed. Those are endpoints of special interest when diuretics are compared, “especially for the subgroup of patients who are diuretic resistant.”

Over the last 20 years or so, “we’ve learned that hospitalized heart failure is a very different disease process with a different natural history,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not part of the current study.

“So, the idea that something as nuanced as choice of one loop diuretic over the other, in that setting, would be sufficient to change the natural history, may be still a high bar for us,” he said in an interview.

“Based on these data, one would have to argue that whichever loop diuretic you select for the hospitalized patient – and a lot of that is driven by market exigencies right now – it turns out that the response is indistinguishable,” Dr. Yancy said. “That means  if your hospital happens to have furosemide on the formulary, use it. If furosemide is not available but torsemide is available, use it.”

Dr. Yancy said he’d like to see a trial similar to TRANSFORM-HF but in outpatients receiving today’s guideline-directed medical therapy, which includes the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, drugs that increase the fractional excretion of sodium and have a “diureticlike” effect.

Such a trial, he said, would explore “the combination of not one, or two, but three agents with a diuretic effect – a loop diuretic, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, and an SGLT2 inhibitor – in ambulatory, optimized patients. It might make a difference.”

HF regardless of EF

The trial enrolled patients hospitalized with worsening or new-onset HF with a plan for long-term loop diuretic therapy who had either an EF of 40% or lower or, regardless of EF, elevated natriuretic peptide levels when hospitalized.

Of the 2,859 participants, whose mean age was about 65 years, about 36% were women and 34% African American. Overall, 1,428 were assigned to receive furosemide as their initial oral diuretic and 1,431 patients were assigned to the torsemide-first strategy.

The rate of death from any cause in both groups was 17 per 100 patient-years at a median of 17.4 months. The hazard ratio for torsemide vs. furosemide was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18; P = .77).

The corresponding HR at 12 months for all-cause death or hospitalization was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02;  P = .11). The relative risk for any hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

Pragmatic design: Other implications

Dosing was left to clinician discretion in the open-label study, as was whether patients maintained their assigned drug or switched over to the other agent. Indeed, 5.4% of patients crossed over to the other loop diuretic, and 2.8% went off loop diuretics entirely between in-hospital randomization and discharge, Dr. Mentz reported. By day 30, 6.7% had crossed over, and 7% had stopped taking loop diuretics.

The diuretic crossovers and discontinuations, Dr. Mentz said, likely biased the trial’s outcomes, such that the two strategies performed about equally well. Efforts were made, however, to at least partially overcome that limitation.

“We put measures in place to support adherence – sending letters to their primary doctors, giving them a wallet card so they would know which therapy they were on, having conversations about the importance of trying to stay on the randomized therapy,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. Still, some clinicians saw differences between the two agents that prompted them, at some point, to switch patients from one loop diuretic to the other.

But interestingly, Dr. Mentz reported, the two strategies did not significantly differ in all-cause mortality or the composite of all-cause mortality or hospitalization in analysis by intention to treat.

Dr. Mentz discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer/Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Pharmacosmos, Respicardia, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll; and research grants from American Regent and Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt discloses receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter Health Care, and Sanofi Aventis and having other relationships with Renovacor, Respicardia, Abbott Vascular, Liva Nova, Vifor, and Cardurion. Dr. Yancy discloses a modest relationship with Abbott.

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

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Systematic mortality-risk assessment of patients who presented to hospital emergency departments for acute heart failure led to better patient outcomes in a controlled Canadian trial with more than 5,000 patients.

Thirty days after patients presented, the incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes – one of two primary endpoints in the COACH study – was 12.1% among patients who underwent acute risk assessment and 14.5% in control patients who did not undergo this assessment, which translated into an adjusted, significant 12% relative risk reduction for the patients who underwent systematic assessment, Douglas S. Lee, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The study’s second primary endpoint, the incidence of the same combined outcome 20 months after initial presentation, was 54.4% among the 2,480 patients assessed with the risk-assessment tool and 56.2% in the 2,972 controls, a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 5%.

This benefit was primarily driven by reductions in cardiovascular hospitalizations, which fell by an adjusted 16% in the intervention group compared with controls, and more specifically by hospitalizations for heart failure, which tallied a relative 20% less with the intervention. Both were significant between-group differences.

The other portion of the combined endpoint, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between the patients who underwent the systematic emergency department assessment and the controls who were managed using usual emergency-department protocols.

Simultaneous with the report, the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A pathway for early discharge and improved outcomes

“Implementation of this approach may lead to a pathway for early discharge from the hospital or emergency department, and improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, and a senior core scientist at the ICES Cardiovascular Research Program in Toronto.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The treatment effect on the primary process outcome – patients admitted or discharged – will add useful insights into how intervention may improve,” commented Harriette Van Spall, MD, who was designated discussant for the report. The findings “fill an important knowledge gap,” added Dr. Van Spall, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. The results “have important implications for health resource utilization,” she said.

The risk assessment tool used in the study is called the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 30-day mortality (EHMRG30-ST), which was devised and validated by Dr. Lee and his associates. The assessment tool uses 11 clinical variables that include age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, potassium and creatinine levels, and presence of ST depression on a 12-lead ECG.

The study design recommended that patients be discharged early and receive standardized transitional care as outpatients if they had a low risk of death within 7 days and within 30 days as estimated by the EHMRG30-ST. The protocol recommended that patients scored as high risk should be admitted to the hospital, and that clinicians use their clinical judgment for intermediate-risk patients but favor admission for intermediate to high risk and discharge for low to intermediate risk. The study ran at 10 hospitals in Ontario. Initially, all 10 hospitals assessed patients by usual care, and then, over time, each hospital began using the tool so that by the end of the study all 10 hospitals employed it. Among the 2,480 patients seen during the active phase, 2,442 actually underwent assessment, with 24% rated as low risk, 32% rated as intermediate risk, and 44% judged to have high risk.

The researchers also ran risk assessments retrospectively on the controls, who showed a roughly similar risk distribution, with 18% low risk, 28% intermediate risk, and 54% high risk.

The patients averaged 78 years of age, 55% were men, about 40% had diabetes, and about 64% had a prior heart failure diagnosis.



Heart failure admissions have become ‘a big deal’

Emergency department clinicians and heart failure cardiologists “have worked together for a long time” when making decisions about which patients with acute heart failure need hospital admission, commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis. These decisions “became a big deal” a decade ago when the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program that began to penalize hospitals for high rates of hospital readmissions for several conditions including heart failure, she said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“If a heart failure patient is not admitted, they can’t be readmitted,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“Many risk-assessment tools exist for patients once they are hospitalized, but these tools have not been used in emergency departments. The take-home message is that we need to start risk assessment sooner, in the emergency department,” she said.

But the specific approach tested in the COACH trial needs more study and may need further tweaking to work in the United States, where it is not clear who would pay for a program like the one tested in the trial. Canada’s unified health care payment system makes the COACH approach more financially feasible, Dr. Walsh commented.

COACH received no commercial funding. Dr. Lee, Dr. Van Spall, and Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

In the first transplant of a genetically altered pig heart into a human in January, initial unexpected, prolonged ECG readings apparently did not affect the heart’s function, although the organ suddenly began to fail at day 50.

A study of these ECG changes, scheduled for presentation by Calvin Kagan, MD, and colleagues at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, offers insight into this novel operation.

As widely reported, the patient, 57-year-old David Bennett of Maryland, had end-stage heart disease and was a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device and was ineligible for a human heart, when he consented to be the first human to be transplanted with a pig heart that had a number of genes added or subtracted with the goal, in part, to prevent rejection.

University of Maryland Medical Center

The heart initially performed well after it was transplanted in an operation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) in Baltimore on Jan. 7, but failed in the second month, and Mr. Bennett died on March 9.

The Food and Drug Administration had granted emergency authorization for the surgery through its expanded access (compassionate use) program, coauthor Muhammad Mohiuddin, MD, said in an interview.

“We have learned a lot and hope we can do more,” said Dr. Mohiuddin, scientific and program director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at UMSOM.

“Suddenly on day 50, the heart started to get thicker and was not relaxing enough,” explained senior author Timm-Michael Dickfeld, MD, PhD, director of electrophysiology research at UMSOM. A biopsy revealed substantial buildup of interstitial fluid that restricted movement. The fluid was replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to irreversible damage.

Persistent, prolonged ECG parameters

In the heart from a genetically modified pig, three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection and a gene associated with pig heart tissue growth had been inactivated and six human genes associated with immune acceptance had been added. The donor pig was supplied by Revivicor (Blacksburg, Va.).

The patient’s immunosuppressant therapy included an experimental antirejection medication (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals; Lexington, Mass.).  

The patient had daily 12-lead ECGs after the transplant.

In prior research using a pig heart transplanted into a pig body, ECG readings showed a short PR interval (50-120 ms), short QRS duration (70-90 ms) and short QT intervals (260-380 ms).

However, in the transplanted xenograft heart, the initial ECG readings showed a longer PR interval of 190 ms, QRS duration of 138 ms, and QT of 538 ms.

Prolonged intrinsic PR intervals remained stable during the postoperative course (210 ms, range 142-246 ms).

QRS duration also remained prolonged (145 ms, range 116-192 ms), but shortened during the postoperative course (days 21-40 vs. 41-60: 148 ms vs. 132 ms; P < .001).

Increased QT persisted (509 ms, range 384-650 ms) with dynamic fluctuations. The shortest QT duration was observed on day 14 (P < .001).

“In a human heart, when those parameters get longer, this can indicate signs of electrical or myocardial disease,” Dr. Dickfeld explained in a press release from the AHA.

“The QRS duration may prolong when, for example, the muscle and the electrical system itself is diseased, and that is why it takes a long time for electricity to travel from cell to cell and travel from one side of the heart to the other,” he said.

“In the human heart, the QT duration is correlated with an increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms,” he noted. “In our patient, it was concerning that the QT measure was prolonged. While we saw some fluctuations, the QT measure remained prolonged during the whole 61 days.”
 

‘Interesting study’

Two experts who were not involved with this research weighed in on the findings for this news organization.

“This very interesting study reinforces the difficulties in xenotransplantation, and the need for more research to be able to safely monitor recipients, as baseline values are unknown,” said Edward Vigmond, PhD.

Dr. Vigmond, from the Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute at the University of Bordeaux in France, published a related study about a model of translation of pig to human electrophysiology.

The ECG is sensitive to the electrical activation pattern of the heart, along with the cellular and tissue electrical properties, he noted.

“Although pigs and humans may be similar in size, there are many differences between them,” Dr. Vigmond observed, including “the extent of the rapid conduction system of the heart, the number of nuclei in the muscle cells, the proteins in the cell membrane which control electrical activity, the orientation of the heart and thorax, and the handling of calcium inside the cell.”

“On top of this,” he continued, “donor hearts are denervated, so they no longer respond to nervous modulation, and circulating compounds in the blood which affect heart function vary between species.

“With all these differences, it is not surprising that the ECG of a pig heart transplanted into a human resembles neither that of a human nor that of a pig,” Dr. Vigmond said.

“It is interesting to note that the humanized-gene-edited porcine heart exhibited abnormal electrical conduction parameters from the outset,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD.

“Whether these changes were due to the gene modifications (i.e., already inherent in the pig ECG prior to transplant) or a result of the transplant operation challenges (such as the ischemia reperfusion injury and early immunological interactions) is uncertain and should be clarified,” said Dr. Mehra, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Medicine in Boston.

“Knowledge of these changes is important to determine whether a simple ECG parameter may be useful to identify changes that could indicate developing pathology,” Dr. Mehra added.

“In the older days of human transplantation, we often used ECG parameters such as a change in voltage amplitude to identify signals for rejection,” he continued. “Whether such changes occurred in this case could be another interesting aspect to explore as changes occurred in cardiac performance in response to the physiological and pathological challenges that were encountered in this sentinel case.”

The study authors reported having no outside sources of funding.
 

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

In the first transplant of a genetically altered pig heart into a human in January, initial unexpected, prolonged ECG readings apparently did not affect the heart’s function, although the organ suddenly began to fail at day 50.

A study of these ECG changes, scheduled for presentation by Calvin Kagan, MD, and colleagues at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, offers insight into this novel operation.

As widely reported, the patient, 57-year-old David Bennett of Maryland, had end-stage heart disease and was a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device and was ineligible for a human heart, when he consented to be the first human to be transplanted with a pig heart that had a number of genes added or subtracted with the goal, in part, to prevent rejection.

University of Maryland Medical Center

The heart initially performed well after it was transplanted in an operation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) in Baltimore on Jan. 7, but failed in the second month, and Mr. Bennett died on March 9.

The Food and Drug Administration had granted emergency authorization for the surgery through its expanded access (compassionate use) program, coauthor Muhammad Mohiuddin, MD, said in an interview.

“We have learned a lot and hope we can do more,” said Dr. Mohiuddin, scientific and program director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at UMSOM.

“Suddenly on day 50, the heart started to get thicker and was not relaxing enough,” explained senior author Timm-Michael Dickfeld, MD, PhD, director of electrophysiology research at UMSOM. A biopsy revealed substantial buildup of interstitial fluid that restricted movement. The fluid was replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to irreversible damage.

Persistent, prolonged ECG parameters

In the heart from a genetically modified pig, three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection and a gene associated with pig heart tissue growth had been inactivated and six human genes associated with immune acceptance had been added. The donor pig was supplied by Revivicor (Blacksburg, Va.).

The patient’s immunosuppressant therapy included an experimental antirejection medication (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals; Lexington, Mass.).  

The patient had daily 12-lead ECGs after the transplant.

In prior research using a pig heart transplanted into a pig body, ECG readings showed a short PR interval (50-120 ms), short QRS duration (70-90 ms) and short QT intervals (260-380 ms).

However, in the transplanted xenograft heart, the initial ECG readings showed a longer PR interval of 190 ms, QRS duration of 138 ms, and QT of 538 ms.

Prolonged intrinsic PR intervals remained stable during the postoperative course (210 ms, range 142-246 ms).

QRS duration also remained prolonged (145 ms, range 116-192 ms), but shortened during the postoperative course (days 21-40 vs. 41-60: 148 ms vs. 132 ms; P < .001).

Increased QT persisted (509 ms, range 384-650 ms) with dynamic fluctuations. The shortest QT duration was observed on day 14 (P < .001).

“In a human heart, when those parameters get longer, this can indicate signs of electrical or myocardial disease,” Dr. Dickfeld explained in a press release from the AHA.

“The QRS duration may prolong when, for example, the muscle and the electrical system itself is diseased, and that is why it takes a long time for electricity to travel from cell to cell and travel from one side of the heart to the other,” he said.

“In the human heart, the QT duration is correlated with an increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms,” he noted. “In our patient, it was concerning that the QT measure was prolonged. While we saw some fluctuations, the QT measure remained prolonged during the whole 61 days.”
 

‘Interesting study’

Two experts who were not involved with this research weighed in on the findings for this news organization.

“This very interesting study reinforces the difficulties in xenotransplantation, and the need for more research to be able to safely monitor recipients, as baseline values are unknown,” said Edward Vigmond, PhD.

Dr. Vigmond, from the Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute at the University of Bordeaux in France, published a related study about a model of translation of pig to human electrophysiology.

The ECG is sensitive to the electrical activation pattern of the heart, along with the cellular and tissue electrical properties, he noted.

“Although pigs and humans may be similar in size, there are many differences between them,” Dr. Vigmond observed, including “the extent of the rapid conduction system of the heart, the number of nuclei in the muscle cells, the proteins in the cell membrane which control electrical activity, the orientation of the heart and thorax, and the handling of calcium inside the cell.”

“On top of this,” he continued, “donor hearts are denervated, so they no longer respond to nervous modulation, and circulating compounds in the blood which affect heart function vary between species.

“With all these differences, it is not surprising that the ECG of a pig heart transplanted into a human resembles neither that of a human nor that of a pig,” Dr. Vigmond said.

“It is interesting to note that the humanized-gene-edited porcine heart exhibited abnormal electrical conduction parameters from the outset,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD.

“Whether these changes were due to the gene modifications (i.e., already inherent in the pig ECG prior to transplant) or a result of the transplant operation challenges (such as the ischemia reperfusion injury and early immunological interactions) is uncertain and should be clarified,” said Dr. Mehra, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Medicine in Boston.

“Knowledge of these changes is important to determine whether a simple ECG parameter may be useful to identify changes that could indicate developing pathology,” Dr. Mehra added.

“In the older days of human transplantation, we often used ECG parameters such as a change in voltage amplitude to identify signals for rejection,” he continued. “Whether such changes occurred in this case could be another interesting aspect to explore as changes occurred in cardiac performance in response to the physiological and pathological challenges that were encountered in this sentinel case.”

The study authors reported having no outside sources of funding.
 

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

In the first transplant of a genetically altered pig heart into a human in January, initial unexpected, prolonged ECG readings apparently did not affect the heart’s function, although the organ suddenly began to fail at day 50.

A study of these ECG changes, scheduled for presentation by Calvin Kagan, MD, and colleagues at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, offers insight into this novel operation.

As widely reported, the patient, 57-year-old David Bennett of Maryland, had end-stage heart disease and was a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device and was ineligible for a human heart, when he consented to be the first human to be transplanted with a pig heart that had a number of genes added or subtracted with the goal, in part, to prevent rejection.

University of Maryland Medical Center

The heart initially performed well after it was transplanted in an operation at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) in Baltimore on Jan. 7, but failed in the second month, and Mr. Bennett died on March 9.

The Food and Drug Administration had granted emergency authorization for the surgery through its expanded access (compassionate use) program, coauthor Muhammad Mohiuddin, MD, said in an interview.

“We have learned a lot and hope we can do more,” said Dr. Mohiuddin, scientific and program director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at UMSOM.

“Suddenly on day 50, the heart started to get thicker and was not relaxing enough,” explained senior author Timm-Michael Dickfeld, MD, PhD, director of electrophysiology research at UMSOM. A biopsy revealed substantial buildup of interstitial fluid that restricted movement. The fluid was replaced by fibrous tissue, leading to irreversible damage.

Persistent, prolonged ECG parameters

In the heart from a genetically modified pig, three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection and a gene associated with pig heart tissue growth had been inactivated and six human genes associated with immune acceptance had been added. The donor pig was supplied by Revivicor (Blacksburg, Va.).

The patient’s immunosuppressant therapy included an experimental antirejection medication (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals; Lexington, Mass.).  

The patient had daily 12-lead ECGs after the transplant.

In prior research using a pig heart transplanted into a pig body, ECG readings showed a short PR interval (50-120 ms), short QRS duration (70-90 ms) and short QT intervals (260-380 ms).

However, in the transplanted xenograft heart, the initial ECG readings showed a longer PR interval of 190 ms, QRS duration of 138 ms, and QT of 538 ms.

Prolonged intrinsic PR intervals remained stable during the postoperative course (210 ms, range 142-246 ms).

QRS duration also remained prolonged (145 ms, range 116-192 ms), but shortened during the postoperative course (days 21-40 vs. 41-60: 148 ms vs. 132 ms; P < .001).

Increased QT persisted (509 ms, range 384-650 ms) with dynamic fluctuations. The shortest QT duration was observed on day 14 (P < .001).

“In a human heart, when those parameters get longer, this can indicate signs of electrical or myocardial disease,” Dr. Dickfeld explained in a press release from the AHA.

“The QRS duration may prolong when, for example, the muscle and the electrical system itself is diseased, and that is why it takes a long time for electricity to travel from cell to cell and travel from one side of the heart to the other,” he said.

“In the human heart, the QT duration is correlated with an increased risk of abnormal heart rhythms,” he noted. “In our patient, it was concerning that the QT measure was prolonged. While we saw some fluctuations, the QT measure remained prolonged during the whole 61 days.”
 

‘Interesting study’

Two experts who were not involved with this research weighed in on the findings for this news organization.

“This very interesting study reinforces the difficulties in xenotransplantation, and the need for more research to be able to safely monitor recipients, as baseline values are unknown,” said Edward Vigmond, PhD.

Dr. Vigmond, from the Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute at the University of Bordeaux in France, published a related study about a model of translation of pig to human electrophysiology.

The ECG is sensitive to the electrical activation pattern of the heart, along with the cellular and tissue electrical properties, he noted.

“Although pigs and humans may be similar in size, there are many differences between them,” Dr. Vigmond observed, including “the extent of the rapid conduction system of the heart, the number of nuclei in the muscle cells, the proteins in the cell membrane which control electrical activity, the orientation of the heart and thorax, and the handling of calcium inside the cell.”

“On top of this,” he continued, “donor hearts are denervated, so they no longer respond to nervous modulation, and circulating compounds in the blood which affect heart function vary between species.

“With all these differences, it is not surprising that the ECG of a pig heart transplanted into a human resembles neither that of a human nor that of a pig,” Dr. Vigmond said.

“It is interesting to note that the humanized-gene-edited porcine heart exhibited abnormal electrical conduction parameters from the outset,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD.

“Whether these changes were due to the gene modifications (i.e., already inherent in the pig ECG prior to transplant) or a result of the transplant operation challenges (such as the ischemia reperfusion injury and early immunological interactions) is uncertain and should be clarified,” said Dr. Mehra, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Medicine in Boston.

“Knowledge of these changes is important to determine whether a simple ECG parameter may be useful to identify changes that could indicate developing pathology,” Dr. Mehra added.

“In the older days of human transplantation, we often used ECG parameters such as a change in voltage amplitude to identify signals for rejection,” he continued. “Whether such changes occurred in this case could be another interesting aspect to explore as changes occurred in cardiac performance in response to the physiological and pathological challenges that were encountered in this sentinel case.”

The study authors reported having no outside sources of funding.
 

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

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

There was no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with the use of two different diuretics – chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide – in the treatment of hypertension in a new large randomized real-world study.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), which was conducted in more than 13,500 U.S. veterans age 65 years or over, showed almost identical rates of the primary composite endpoint, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization, after a median of 2.4 years of follow-up.

There was no difference in any of the individual endpoints or other secondary cardiovascular outcomes.

However, in the subgroup of patients who had a history of MI or stroke (who made up about 10% of the study population), there was a significant reduction in the primary endpoint with chlorthalidone, whereas those without a history of MI or stroke appeared to have an increased risk for primary outcome events while receiving chlorthalidone compared with those receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

The DCP trial was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Areef Ishani, MD, director of the Minneapolis Primary Care and Specialty Care Integrated Care Community and director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network.

Asked how to interpret the result for clinical practice, Dr. Ishani said, “I think we can now say that either of these two drugs is appropriate to use for the treatment of hypertension.”

But he added that the decision on what to do with the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke was more “challenging.”

“We saw a highly significant benefit in this subgroup, but this was in the context of an overall negative trial,” he noted. “I think this is a discussion with the patients on how they want to hedge their bets. Because these two drugs are so similar, if they wanted to take one or the other because of this subgroup result I think that is a conversation to have, but I think we now need to conduct another trial specifically in this subgroup of patients to see if chlorthalidone really is of benefit in that group.”

Dr. Ishani explained that both chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide have been around for more than 50 years and are considered first-line treatments for hypertension. Early studies suggested better cardiovascular outcomes and 24-hour blood pressure control with chlorthalidone, but recent observational studies have not shown more benefit with chlorthalidone. These studies have suggested that chlorthalidone may be associated with an increase in adverse events, such as hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Pragmatic study

The DCP trial was conducted to try to definitively answer this question of whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide. The pragmatic study had a “point-of-care” design that allowed participants and health care professionals to know which medication was being prescribed and to administer the medication in a real-world setting.

“Patients can continue with their normal care with their usual care team because we integrated this trial into primary care clinics,” Dr. Ishani said. “We followed participant results using their electronic health record. This study was nonintrusive, cost-effective, and inexpensive. Plus, we were able to recruit a large rural population, which is unusual for large, randomized trials, where we usually rely on big academic medical centers.”

Using VA electronic medical records, the investigators recruited primary care physicians who identified patients older than age 65 years who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg or 50 mg) for hypertension. These patients (97% of whom were male) were then randomly assigned to continue receiving hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to an equivalent dose of chlorthalidone. Patients were followed through the electronic medical record as well as Medicare claims and the National Death Index.

Results after a median follow-up of 2.4 years showed no difference in blood pressure control between the two groups.

In terms of clinical events, the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, noncancer death, hospitalization for acute heart failure, or urgent revascularization occurred in 10.4% of the chlorthalidone group and in 10.0% of the hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.16; P = .4).

There was no difference in any individual components of the primary endpoint or the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, any revascularization, or erectile dysfunction.

In terms of adverse events, chlorthalidone was associated with an increase in hypokalemia (6% vs. 4.4%; HR, 1.38), but there was no difference in hospitalization for acute kidney injury.
 

Benefit in MI, stroke subgroup?

In the subgroup analysis, patients with a history of MI or stroke who were receiving chlorthalidone had a significant 27% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94). Conversely, patients without a history of MI or stroke appeared to do worse while taking chlorthalidone (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26).

“We were surprised by these results,” Dr. Ishani said. “We expected chlorthalidone to be more effective overall. However, learning about these differences in patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease may affect patient care. It’s best for people to talk with their health care clinicians about which of these medications is better for their individual needs.”

He added: “More research is needed to explore these results further because we don’t know how they may fit into treating the general population.”

Dr. Ishani noted that a limitations of this study was that most patients were receiving the low dose of chlorthalidone, and previous studies that suggested benefits with chlorthalidone used the higher dose.

“But the world has voted – we had 4,000 clinicians involved in this study, and the vast majority are using the low dose of hydrochlorothiazide. And this is a definitively negative study,” he said. “The world has also voted in that 10 times more patients were on hydrochlorothiazide than on chlorthalidone.”

Commenting on the study at an AHA press conference, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out that in all of the landmark National Institutes of Health hypertension trials, there was a signal for benefit with chlorthalidone compared with other antihypertensives.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

“We’ve always had this concept that chlorthalidone is better,” she said. “But this study shows no difference in major cardiovascular endpoints. There was more hypokalemia with chlorthalidone, but that’s recognizable as chlorthalidone is a more potent diuretic.”

Other limitations of the DCP trial are its open-label design, which could interject some bias; the enduring effects of hydrochlorothiazide – most of these patients were receiving this agent as background therapy; and inability to look at the effectiveness of decongestion of the agents in such a pragmatic study, Dr. Bozkurt noted.

She said she would like to see more analysis in the subgroup of patients with previous MI or stroke. “Does this result mean that chlorthalidone is better for sicker patients or is this result just due to chance?” she asked.

“While this study demonstrates equal effectiveness of these two diuretics in the targeted population, the question of subgroups of patients for which we use a more potent diuretic I think remains unanswered,” she concluded.

Designated discussant of the DCP trial at the late-breaking trial session, Daniel Levy, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, reminded attendees that chlorthalidone had shown impressive results in previous important hypertension studies including SHEP and ALLHAT.

He said the current DCP was a pragmatic study addressing a knowledge gap that “would never have been performed by industry.”

Dr. Levy concluded that the results showing no difference in outcomes between the two diuretics were “compelling,” although a few questions remain.

These include a possible bias toward hydrochlorothiazide – patients were selected who were already taking that drug and so would have already had a favorable response to it. In addition, because the trial was conducted in an older male population, he questioned whether the results could be generalized to women and younger patients.

The DCP study was funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Dr. Ishani reported no disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

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