User login
Heart failure targets African Americans
ORLANDO – The disparity in U.S. heart failure incidence continued undiminished during 2002-2013, with African Americans maintaining a steady 2.3-fold increased rate of heart failure, compared with whites, based on national levels of heart failure hospitalizations, a reasonable surrogate for incidence rates, Boback Ziaeian, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The same period also showed a substantial relative improvement in the heart failure hospitalization rates among U.S. Hispanics, compared with whites, so that, by 2013, the ethnic disparity seen in 2002 between Hispanics and whites largely disappeared, reported Dr. Ziaeian, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. The data he analyzed also showed that Asian Americans had the lowest heart failure hospitalization rates of any racial or ethnic group throughout the 11-year period, and that the incidence of heart failure fell more sharply in women than in men during the period, based on the hospitalization numbers.
Age-adjusted heart failure hospitalizations among whites dropped by 30%, and among African Americans by a nearly identical 29%. But this maintained a greater than twofold disparity in rates between the two groups. Among whites, the rate per 100,000 fell from 448 to 315; among African Americans, it dropped from 1,048 to 741. In 2013, the rate of heart failure hospitalizations was 2.4-fold higher in African Americans, compared with whites.
Heart failure hospitalizations fell among Hispanics from 650 per 100,000 to 337 per 100,000 in 2013, a 48% drop that brought the rate among Hispanics to nearly the same as among whites. Asian Americans remained the group with the least heart failure throughout the period, falling from 343 hospitalizations per 100,000 in 2002 to 181 per 100,000 in 2013, a 47% drop.
Among women, the age-adjusted rate per 100,000 fell from 486 to 311, a 36% drop, compared with a decrease from 582 to 431 per 100,000 in men, a 26% reduction. Lower incidence in women may reflect better risk factor control during the study period, compared with men, such as a higher rate of quiting smoking and better treatment compliance, Dr. Ziaeian suggested.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – The disparity in U.S. heart failure incidence continued undiminished during 2002-2013, with African Americans maintaining a steady 2.3-fold increased rate of heart failure, compared with whites, based on national levels of heart failure hospitalizations, a reasonable surrogate for incidence rates, Boback Ziaeian, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The same period also showed a substantial relative improvement in the heart failure hospitalization rates among U.S. Hispanics, compared with whites, so that, by 2013, the ethnic disparity seen in 2002 between Hispanics and whites largely disappeared, reported Dr. Ziaeian, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. The data he analyzed also showed that Asian Americans had the lowest heart failure hospitalization rates of any racial or ethnic group throughout the 11-year period, and that the incidence of heart failure fell more sharply in women than in men during the period, based on the hospitalization numbers.
Age-adjusted heart failure hospitalizations among whites dropped by 30%, and among African Americans by a nearly identical 29%. But this maintained a greater than twofold disparity in rates between the two groups. Among whites, the rate per 100,000 fell from 448 to 315; among African Americans, it dropped from 1,048 to 741. In 2013, the rate of heart failure hospitalizations was 2.4-fold higher in African Americans, compared with whites.
Heart failure hospitalizations fell among Hispanics from 650 per 100,000 to 337 per 100,000 in 2013, a 48% drop that brought the rate among Hispanics to nearly the same as among whites. Asian Americans remained the group with the least heart failure throughout the period, falling from 343 hospitalizations per 100,000 in 2002 to 181 per 100,000 in 2013, a 47% drop.
Among women, the age-adjusted rate per 100,000 fell from 486 to 311, a 36% drop, compared with a decrease from 582 to 431 per 100,000 in men, a 26% reduction. Lower incidence in women may reflect better risk factor control during the study period, compared with men, such as a higher rate of quiting smoking and better treatment compliance, Dr. Ziaeian suggested.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – The disparity in U.S. heart failure incidence continued undiminished during 2002-2013, with African Americans maintaining a steady 2.3-fold increased rate of heart failure, compared with whites, based on national levels of heart failure hospitalizations, a reasonable surrogate for incidence rates, Boback Ziaeian, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The same period also showed a substantial relative improvement in the heart failure hospitalization rates among U.S. Hispanics, compared with whites, so that, by 2013, the ethnic disparity seen in 2002 between Hispanics and whites largely disappeared, reported Dr. Ziaeian, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. The data he analyzed also showed that Asian Americans had the lowest heart failure hospitalization rates of any racial or ethnic group throughout the 11-year period, and that the incidence of heart failure fell more sharply in women than in men during the period, based on the hospitalization numbers.
Age-adjusted heart failure hospitalizations among whites dropped by 30%, and among African Americans by a nearly identical 29%. But this maintained a greater than twofold disparity in rates between the two groups. Among whites, the rate per 100,000 fell from 448 to 315; among African Americans, it dropped from 1,048 to 741. In 2013, the rate of heart failure hospitalizations was 2.4-fold higher in African Americans, compared with whites.
Heart failure hospitalizations fell among Hispanics from 650 per 100,000 to 337 per 100,000 in 2013, a 48% drop that brought the rate among Hispanics to nearly the same as among whites. Asian Americans remained the group with the least heart failure throughout the period, falling from 343 hospitalizations per 100,000 in 2002 to 181 per 100,000 in 2013, a 47% drop.
Among women, the age-adjusted rate per 100,000 fell from 486 to 311, a 36% drop, compared with a decrease from 582 to 431 per 100,000 in men, a 26% reduction. Lower incidence in women may reflect better risk factor control during the study period, compared with men, such as a higher rate of quiting smoking and better treatment compliance, Dr. Ziaeian suggested.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In 2013, age-adjusted heart failure hospitalization was 741/100,000 in African Americans and 315/100,000 in whites.
Data source: The National Inpatient Sample and U.S. Census data.
Disclosures: Dr. Ziaeian had no disclosures.
Adaptive servo ventilation cuts atrial fib burden
ORLANDO – Adaptive servo ventilation produced a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in atrial fibrillation burden in patients with heart failure and sleep apnea in results from an exploratory, prospective, randomized study with 35 patients.
Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) “may be an effective antiarrhythmic treatment producing a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation without clear evidence of being proarrhythmogenic,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “Given the potential importance of this finding further studies should validate and quantify the efficacy of ASV for reducing atrial fibrillation in patients with or without heart failure.”
“A mound of data has shown that treating sleep apnea reduced arrhythmias, but until now it’s all been observational and retrospective,” Dr. Piccini, an electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. The study he reported is “the first time” the arrhythmia effects of a sleep apnea intervention, in this case ASV, was studied in a prospective, randomized way while using implanted devices to measure the antiarrhythmic effect of the treatment.
The new finding means that additional, larger studies are now needed, he said. “If patients have sleep apnea, treating the apnea may be an incredibly important way to prevent AF or reduce its burden”
The CAT-HF (Cardiovascular Improvements With Minute Ventilation-Targeted ASV Therapy in Heart Failure) trial was originally designed to randomize 215 heart failure patients with sleep disordered breathing – and who were hospitalized for heart failure – to optimal medical therapy with or without ASV at any of 15 centers in the United States and Germany. But in August 2015, results from the SERVE-HF (Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing with Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure) trial, which generally had a similar design to CAT-HF, showed an unexpected danger from ASV in patients with central sleep apnea and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105). In SERVE-HF, ASV was associated with significant increases in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. As a result, enrollment into CAT-HF stopped prematurely with just 126 patients entered, and ASV treatment of patients already enrolled came to a halt.
The primary endpoint in the underpowered and shortened CAT-HF study, survival without cardiovascular hospitalization and with improved functional capacity measured on a 6-minute walk test, showed similar outcomes in both the ASV and control arms. But in a prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction, the 24 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (19% of the CAT-HF enrollment) showed a statistically significant, 62% relative improvement in the primary endpoint linked with ASV treatment compared with similar patients who did not receive ASV, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University, reported in May 2016 at the European Heart Failure meeting in Florence.
Dr. Piccini’s report focused on a prespecified subgroup analysis of CAT-HF designed to examine the impact of ASV on arrhythmias. Assessment of the impact of ASV on atrial fibrillation was possible in 35 of the 126 patients in CAT-HF who had an implanted cardiac device (pacemaker, defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device) with an atrial lead, and assessment of ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 46 of the CAT-HF patients with an implanted high-voltage device (a defibrillator or resynchronization device) that allowed monitoring of ventricular arrhythmias.
For the atrial fibrillation analysis, the 35 patients averaged 60 years of age, and about 90% had a reduced ejection fraction. About two-thirds had an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30.
The results showed that the 19 patients randomized to receive ASV had an average atrial fibrillation burden of 30% at baseline that dropped to 14% after 6 months of treatment. In contrast, the 16 patients in the control arm had a AF burden of 6% at baseline and 8% after 6 months. The between-group difference for change in AF burden was statistically significant, Dr. Piccini reported, with a burden that decreased by a relative 21% with ASV treatment and increased by a relative 31% in the control arm.
Analysis of the ventricular arrhythmia subgroup showed that ASV had no statistically significant impact for either lowering or raising ventricular tachyarrhythmias or fibrillations.
Trying to reconcile this AF benefit and lack of ventricular arrhythmia harm from ASV in CAT-HF with the excess in cardiovascular deaths seen with ASV in SERVE-HF, Dr. Piccini speculated that some of the SERVE-HF deaths may not have been related to arrhythmia.
“Sudden cardiac death adjudication is profoundly difficult, and does not always equal ventricular arrhythmia,” he said. “We need to consider that some of the adverse events in patients with severe central sleep apnea and low left ventricular ejection fraction [enrolled in SERVE-HF] may have been due to causes other than arrhythmias. The CAT-HF results should motivate investigations of alternative mechanisms of death in SERVE-HF.”
The CAT-HF trial was funded by ResMed, a company that markets adaptive servo ventilation equipment. Dr. Piccini has received research support from ResMed and from Janssen, Gilead, St. Jude, Spectranetics, and he has been a consultant to Janssen, Spectranetics, Medtronic, GSK and BMS-Pfizer. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to ResMed and to several other drug and device companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
A small prespecified sub-group of patients in the CAT-HF (Cardiovascuar improvements with minute ventilation-targeted ASV therapy in heart failure) trial randomized to adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) showed a 21% relative reduction in atrial fibrillation burden as compared to the control arm which had only 31% relative reduction. While the CAT-HF study was discontinued following results of SERVE-HF trial, this subgroup analysis included 35 patients (19 ASV arm; 16 control arm), the majority of whom had a reduced ejection fraction. This report poses interesting questions about effects of ASV on atrial fibrillation burden in those with reduced EF given the finding that central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration are shown to be associated with incident atrial fibrillation in older men (May et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016).
A small prespecified sub-group of patients in the CAT-HF (Cardiovascuar improvements with minute ventilation-targeted ASV therapy in heart failure) trial randomized to adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) showed a 21% relative reduction in atrial fibrillation burden as compared to the control arm which had only 31% relative reduction. While the CAT-HF study was discontinued following results of SERVE-HF trial, this subgroup analysis included 35 patients (19 ASV arm; 16 control arm), the majority of whom had a reduced ejection fraction. This report poses interesting questions about effects of ASV on atrial fibrillation burden in those with reduced EF given the finding that central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration are shown to be associated with incident atrial fibrillation in older men (May et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016).
A small prespecified sub-group of patients in the CAT-HF (Cardiovascuar improvements with minute ventilation-targeted ASV therapy in heart failure) trial randomized to adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) showed a 21% relative reduction in atrial fibrillation burden as compared to the control arm which had only 31% relative reduction. While the CAT-HF study was discontinued following results of SERVE-HF trial, this subgroup analysis included 35 patients (19 ASV arm; 16 control arm), the majority of whom had a reduced ejection fraction. This report poses interesting questions about effects of ASV on atrial fibrillation burden in those with reduced EF given the finding that central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration are shown to be associated with incident atrial fibrillation in older men (May et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016).
ORLANDO – Adaptive servo ventilation produced a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in atrial fibrillation burden in patients with heart failure and sleep apnea in results from an exploratory, prospective, randomized study with 35 patients.
Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) “may be an effective antiarrhythmic treatment producing a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation without clear evidence of being proarrhythmogenic,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “Given the potential importance of this finding further studies should validate and quantify the efficacy of ASV for reducing atrial fibrillation in patients with or without heart failure.”
“A mound of data has shown that treating sleep apnea reduced arrhythmias, but until now it’s all been observational and retrospective,” Dr. Piccini, an electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. The study he reported is “the first time” the arrhythmia effects of a sleep apnea intervention, in this case ASV, was studied in a prospective, randomized way while using implanted devices to measure the antiarrhythmic effect of the treatment.
The new finding means that additional, larger studies are now needed, he said. “If patients have sleep apnea, treating the apnea may be an incredibly important way to prevent AF or reduce its burden”
The CAT-HF (Cardiovascular Improvements With Minute Ventilation-Targeted ASV Therapy in Heart Failure) trial was originally designed to randomize 215 heart failure patients with sleep disordered breathing – and who were hospitalized for heart failure – to optimal medical therapy with or without ASV at any of 15 centers in the United States and Germany. But in August 2015, results from the SERVE-HF (Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing with Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure) trial, which generally had a similar design to CAT-HF, showed an unexpected danger from ASV in patients with central sleep apnea and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105). In SERVE-HF, ASV was associated with significant increases in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. As a result, enrollment into CAT-HF stopped prematurely with just 126 patients entered, and ASV treatment of patients already enrolled came to a halt.
The primary endpoint in the underpowered and shortened CAT-HF study, survival without cardiovascular hospitalization and with improved functional capacity measured on a 6-minute walk test, showed similar outcomes in both the ASV and control arms. But in a prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction, the 24 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (19% of the CAT-HF enrollment) showed a statistically significant, 62% relative improvement in the primary endpoint linked with ASV treatment compared with similar patients who did not receive ASV, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University, reported in May 2016 at the European Heart Failure meeting in Florence.
Dr. Piccini’s report focused on a prespecified subgroup analysis of CAT-HF designed to examine the impact of ASV on arrhythmias. Assessment of the impact of ASV on atrial fibrillation was possible in 35 of the 126 patients in CAT-HF who had an implanted cardiac device (pacemaker, defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device) with an atrial lead, and assessment of ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 46 of the CAT-HF patients with an implanted high-voltage device (a defibrillator or resynchronization device) that allowed monitoring of ventricular arrhythmias.
For the atrial fibrillation analysis, the 35 patients averaged 60 years of age, and about 90% had a reduced ejection fraction. About two-thirds had an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30.
The results showed that the 19 patients randomized to receive ASV had an average atrial fibrillation burden of 30% at baseline that dropped to 14% after 6 months of treatment. In contrast, the 16 patients in the control arm had a AF burden of 6% at baseline and 8% after 6 months. The between-group difference for change in AF burden was statistically significant, Dr. Piccini reported, with a burden that decreased by a relative 21% with ASV treatment and increased by a relative 31% in the control arm.
Analysis of the ventricular arrhythmia subgroup showed that ASV had no statistically significant impact for either lowering or raising ventricular tachyarrhythmias or fibrillations.
Trying to reconcile this AF benefit and lack of ventricular arrhythmia harm from ASV in CAT-HF with the excess in cardiovascular deaths seen with ASV in SERVE-HF, Dr. Piccini speculated that some of the SERVE-HF deaths may not have been related to arrhythmia.
“Sudden cardiac death adjudication is profoundly difficult, and does not always equal ventricular arrhythmia,” he said. “We need to consider that some of the adverse events in patients with severe central sleep apnea and low left ventricular ejection fraction [enrolled in SERVE-HF] may have been due to causes other than arrhythmias. The CAT-HF results should motivate investigations of alternative mechanisms of death in SERVE-HF.”
The CAT-HF trial was funded by ResMed, a company that markets adaptive servo ventilation equipment. Dr. Piccini has received research support from ResMed and from Janssen, Gilead, St. Jude, Spectranetics, and he has been a consultant to Janssen, Spectranetics, Medtronic, GSK and BMS-Pfizer. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to ResMed and to several other drug and device companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Adaptive servo ventilation produced a significant and clinically meaningful reduction in atrial fibrillation burden in patients with heart failure and sleep apnea in results from an exploratory, prospective, randomized study with 35 patients.
Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) “may be an effective antiarrhythmic treatment producing a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation without clear evidence of being proarrhythmogenic,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “Given the potential importance of this finding further studies should validate and quantify the efficacy of ASV for reducing atrial fibrillation in patients with or without heart failure.”
“A mound of data has shown that treating sleep apnea reduced arrhythmias, but until now it’s all been observational and retrospective,” Dr. Piccini, an electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. The study he reported is “the first time” the arrhythmia effects of a sleep apnea intervention, in this case ASV, was studied in a prospective, randomized way while using implanted devices to measure the antiarrhythmic effect of the treatment.
The new finding means that additional, larger studies are now needed, he said. “If patients have sleep apnea, treating the apnea may be an incredibly important way to prevent AF or reduce its burden”
The CAT-HF (Cardiovascular Improvements With Minute Ventilation-Targeted ASV Therapy in Heart Failure) trial was originally designed to randomize 215 heart failure patients with sleep disordered breathing – and who were hospitalized for heart failure – to optimal medical therapy with or without ASV at any of 15 centers in the United States and Germany. But in August 2015, results from the SERVE-HF (Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing with Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure) trial, which generally had a similar design to CAT-HF, showed an unexpected danger from ASV in patients with central sleep apnea and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sept 17;373[12]:1095-105). In SERVE-HF, ASV was associated with significant increases in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. As a result, enrollment into CAT-HF stopped prematurely with just 126 patients entered, and ASV treatment of patients already enrolled came to a halt.
The primary endpoint in the underpowered and shortened CAT-HF study, survival without cardiovascular hospitalization and with improved functional capacity measured on a 6-minute walk test, showed similar outcomes in both the ASV and control arms. But in a prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline ejection fraction, the 24 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (19% of the CAT-HF enrollment) showed a statistically significant, 62% relative improvement in the primary endpoint linked with ASV treatment compared with similar patients who did not receive ASV, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University, reported in May 2016 at the European Heart Failure meeting in Florence.
Dr. Piccini’s report focused on a prespecified subgroup analysis of CAT-HF designed to examine the impact of ASV on arrhythmias. Assessment of the impact of ASV on atrial fibrillation was possible in 35 of the 126 patients in CAT-HF who had an implanted cardiac device (pacemaker, defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device) with an atrial lead, and assessment of ventricular arrhythmias occurred in 46 of the CAT-HF patients with an implanted high-voltage device (a defibrillator or resynchronization device) that allowed monitoring of ventricular arrhythmias.
For the atrial fibrillation analysis, the 35 patients averaged 60 years of age, and about 90% had a reduced ejection fraction. About two-thirds had an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 30.
The results showed that the 19 patients randomized to receive ASV had an average atrial fibrillation burden of 30% at baseline that dropped to 14% after 6 months of treatment. In contrast, the 16 patients in the control arm had a AF burden of 6% at baseline and 8% after 6 months. The between-group difference for change in AF burden was statistically significant, Dr. Piccini reported, with a burden that decreased by a relative 21% with ASV treatment and increased by a relative 31% in the control arm.
Analysis of the ventricular arrhythmia subgroup showed that ASV had no statistically significant impact for either lowering or raising ventricular tachyarrhythmias or fibrillations.
Trying to reconcile this AF benefit and lack of ventricular arrhythmia harm from ASV in CAT-HF with the excess in cardiovascular deaths seen with ASV in SERVE-HF, Dr. Piccini speculated that some of the SERVE-HF deaths may not have been related to arrhythmia.
“Sudden cardiac death adjudication is profoundly difficult, and does not always equal ventricular arrhythmia,” he said. “We need to consider that some of the adverse events in patients with severe central sleep apnea and low left ventricular ejection fraction [enrolled in SERVE-HF] may have been due to causes other than arrhythmias. The CAT-HF results should motivate investigations of alternative mechanisms of death in SERVE-HF.”
The CAT-HF trial was funded by ResMed, a company that markets adaptive servo ventilation equipment. Dr. Piccini has received research support from ResMed and from Janssen, Gilead, St. Jude, Spectranetics, and he has been a consultant to Janssen, Spectranetics, Medtronic, GSK and BMS-Pfizer. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to ResMed and to several other drug and device companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Key clinical point:
Major finding: After 6 months, ASV produced a relative 21% drop in atrial fibrillation burden, compared with increased burden in control patients.
Data source: CAT-HF, a multicenter randomized trial that enrolled 126 heart failure patients with sleep apnea.
Disclosures: The CAT-HF trial was funded by ResMed, a company that markets adaptive servo ventilation equipment. Dr. Piccini has received research support and/or consultant fees from ResMed, Janssen, Gilead, St. Jude, Spectranetics, Medtronic, GSK and BMS-Pfizer.
Advanced heart failure symptoms linked to mortality
ORLANDO – Advanced heart failure patients who are hospitalized for heart failure and have a higher symptom burden at discharge have a significantly increased rate of death or rehospitalization over the next 6 months, based on an analysis of 393 patients enrolled in a heart failure trial.
The strong link between severe symptom burden and poor near-term outcomes persisted despite adjustment for various markers of heart failure severity, suggesting that treatment aimed at reducing symptoms may be able to reduce mortality or heart failure hospitalization in advanced heart failure patients, Ellen K. Hummel, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
In her analysis, a severe symptom burden at the time of hospital discharge linked with an adjusted 2.9-fold increased mortality rate and a 2.5-fold increased rate of days dead or hospitalized during the next 6 months, said Dr. Hummel, a geriatric and palliative care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. These elevated rate ratios for patients with severe symptoms at hospital discharge were in comparison to the ratios for advanced heart failure patients in the study with no symptoms at discharge.
Three symptoms contributed to the symptom score she used in her analysis: fatigue, scored on a scale of 0-3; dyspnea, also scored 0-3; and gastrointestinal distress, scored as 0-2, creating a maximum score of 8. Her analysis categorized mild as a total score of 1-4 and severe as 5 or greater. In the study population she used for her analysis, patients enrolled in the multicenter ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) trial, 111 of the 393 evaluable patients (28%) had none of these symptoms, 239 (61%) had mild symptoms, and 43 (11%) had severe symptoms. Scoring was done by patients based on their subjective self-assessment at the time of hospital discharge.
The absolute, observed 6-month mortality rates were roughly 45% among patients with severe symptoms, about 17% in patients with mild symptoms, and about 12% in those with no symptoms.
The primary purpose of ESCAPE was to assess the impact that routine collection of data from a pulmonary artery catheter during hospitalization has on outcomes; the results showed no significant link between improved outcomes and getting these data (JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294[13]:1625-33). The study ran during 2000-2003 at 26 centers in the United States and Canada. Of the 433 advanced heart failure patients enrolled in ESCAPE, 393 had complete records to allow the current analysis.
The adjustments that Dr. Hummel made in the proportional hazard analysis took into account New York Heart Association class, and severity of disease at the time of hospital discharge measured by the ESCAPE Discharge Risk Score. This score takes into account age, 6-minute walk distance, blood urea nitrogen, brain natriuretic peptide levels, blood pressure, selected drug treatments, sodium level, and history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Hummel had no relevant financial disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Advanced heart failure patients who are hospitalized for heart failure and have a higher symptom burden at discharge have a significantly increased rate of death or rehospitalization over the next 6 months, based on an analysis of 393 patients enrolled in a heart failure trial.
The strong link between severe symptom burden and poor near-term outcomes persisted despite adjustment for various markers of heart failure severity, suggesting that treatment aimed at reducing symptoms may be able to reduce mortality or heart failure hospitalization in advanced heart failure patients, Ellen K. Hummel, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
In her analysis, a severe symptom burden at the time of hospital discharge linked with an adjusted 2.9-fold increased mortality rate and a 2.5-fold increased rate of days dead or hospitalized during the next 6 months, said Dr. Hummel, a geriatric and palliative care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. These elevated rate ratios for patients with severe symptoms at hospital discharge were in comparison to the ratios for advanced heart failure patients in the study with no symptoms at discharge.
Three symptoms contributed to the symptom score she used in her analysis: fatigue, scored on a scale of 0-3; dyspnea, also scored 0-3; and gastrointestinal distress, scored as 0-2, creating a maximum score of 8. Her analysis categorized mild as a total score of 1-4 and severe as 5 or greater. In the study population she used for her analysis, patients enrolled in the multicenter ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) trial, 111 of the 393 evaluable patients (28%) had none of these symptoms, 239 (61%) had mild symptoms, and 43 (11%) had severe symptoms. Scoring was done by patients based on their subjective self-assessment at the time of hospital discharge.
The absolute, observed 6-month mortality rates were roughly 45% among patients with severe symptoms, about 17% in patients with mild symptoms, and about 12% in those with no symptoms.
The primary purpose of ESCAPE was to assess the impact that routine collection of data from a pulmonary artery catheter during hospitalization has on outcomes; the results showed no significant link between improved outcomes and getting these data (JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294[13]:1625-33). The study ran during 2000-2003 at 26 centers in the United States and Canada. Of the 433 advanced heart failure patients enrolled in ESCAPE, 393 had complete records to allow the current analysis.
The adjustments that Dr. Hummel made in the proportional hazard analysis took into account New York Heart Association class, and severity of disease at the time of hospital discharge measured by the ESCAPE Discharge Risk Score. This score takes into account age, 6-minute walk distance, blood urea nitrogen, brain natriuretic peptide levels, blood pressure, selected drug treatments, sodium level, and history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Hummel had no relevant financial disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Advanced heart failure patients who are hospitalized for heart failure and have a higher symptom burden at discharge have a significantly increased rate of death or rehospitalization over the next 6 months, based on an analysis of 393 patients enrolled in a heart failure trial.
The strong link between severe symptom burden and poor near-term outcomes persisted despite adjustment for various markers of heart failure severity, suggesting that treatment aimed at reducing symptoms may be able to reduce mortality or heart failure hospitalization in advanced heart failure patients, Ellen K. Hummel, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
In her analysis, a severe symptom burden at the time of hospital discharge linked with an adjusted 2.9-fold increased mortality rate and a 2.5-fold increased rate of days dead or hospitalized during the next 6 months, said Dr. Hummel, a geriatric and palliative care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. These elevated rate ratios for patients with severe symptoms at hospital discharge were in comparison to the ratios for advanced heart failure patients in the study with no symptoms at discharge.
Three symptoms contributed to the symptom score she used in her analysis: fatigue, scored on a scale of 0-3; dyspnea, also scored 0-3; and gastrointestinal distress, scored as 0-2, creating a maximum score of 8. Her analysis categorized mild as a total score of 1-4 and severe as 5 or greater. In the study population she used for her analysis, patients enrolled in the multicenter ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) trial, 111 of the 393 evaluable patients (28%) had none of these symptoms, 239 (61%) had mild symptoms, and 43 (11%) had severe symptoms. Scoring was done by patients based on their subjective self-assessment at the time of hospital discharge.
The absolute, observed 6-month mortality rates were roughly 45% among patients with severe symptoms, about 17% in patients with mild symptoms, and about 12% in those with no symptoms.
The primary purpose of ESCAPE was to assess the impact that routine collection of data from a pulmonary artery catheter during hospitalization has on outcomes; the results showed no significant link between improved outcomes and getting these data (JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294[13]:1625-33). The study ran during 2000-2003 at 26 centers in the United States and Canada. Of the 433 advanced heart failure patients enrolled in ESCAPE, 393 had complete records to allow the current analysis.
The adjustments that Dr. Hummel made in the proportional hazard analysis took into account New York Heart Association class, and severity of disease at the time of hospital discharge measured by the ESCAPE Discharge Risk Score. This score takes into account age, 6-minute walk distance, blood urea nitrogen, brain natriuretic peptide levels, blood pressure, selected drug treatments, sodium level, and history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Hummel had no relevant financial disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with severe symptoms at discharge had a 2.9-fold increased rate of death, compared with those with no symptoms.
Data source: A post hoc analysis of data collected from 393 patients enrolled in the ESCAPE trial.
Disclosures: Dr. Hummel had no relevant financial disclosures.
TOPCAT, a third time around
Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet, refers to the proverb, “A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last he stays.”
TOPCAT is back again, having randomized its first patient with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) almost 10 years ago for its treatment with spironolactone (SPIRO), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.
The first report of the results of TOPCAT in 2014 indicated that there was no benefit associate with SPIRO therapy tested in the 3,445 patients randomized in 244 sites around the world (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92). A subsequent analysis of data carried out in 2015 reported a striking regional difference in the outcome of patients randomized in the 1,767 patients in the Americas, compared with the 1,678 randomized in Russia and Georgia (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42). In the Americas, there was an 18% decrease in the primary event of death and heart failure rehospitalization (3.6% in the SPIRO vs. 4.9% in the placebo; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .026). There was essentially no difference in the groups randomized in Russia and Georgia, which had a 1.6% placebo event rate.
And now in 2016, at the recent meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, we were informed that there was no detectable level of blood canrenone, a metabolite of SPIRO, in 30% of the 66 randomized patients in Russia and Georgia, compared with 3% of the patients randomized in the Americas (Cardiology News. Oct 2016. p 8). These data tend to confirm that the patients randomized in Russia and Georgia were either undertreated or not treated. In fact, after examination of the baseline characteristics of the two groups it is possible that many of the patients may not have had heart failure at all.
So what are we left with? One thing that is clear is that the management of TOPCAT was flawed and constitutes an example of how not to run an international clinical trial. Can we make any conclusion about the benefit of SPIRO? TOPCAT initially was powered for over 3,515 patients and 630 events in order to achieve a 85% benefit. The current analysis has now narrowed the population down to 1,787 patients with 522 events with an 18% decrease (P = .02) in the primary end point. During the mean follow-up of 3.3 years there was a placebo mortality of 4.9%, which is impressive in the setting of concomitant beta-blocker and renin angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. The only significant adverse observation was a threefold occurrence in hyperkalemia (potassium greater than 5.5 mmols/L) in the 25.2% in the Americas group treated with SPIRO, compared with the Russian-Georgian patients
Unfortunately the answer is not entirely clear. We all know who HFpEF patients are when they walk into the clinic but identifying them for a clinical trial has been difficult if not impossible. As for me, I will choose to treat their hypertension aggressively (not an easy task) and prevent or suppress their arrhythmias. In that project I will use beta-blockers and SPIRO to prevent their next heart failure episode and hope for the best.
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet, refers to the proverb, “A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last he stays.”
TOPCAT is back again, having randomized its first patient with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) almost 10 years ago for its treatment with spironolactone (SPIRO), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.
The first report of the results of TOPCAT in 2014 indicated that there was no benefit associate with SPIRO therapy tested in the 3,445 patients randomized in 244 sites around the world (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92). A subsequent analysis of data carried out in 2015 reported a striking regional difference in the outcome of patients randomized in the 1,767 patients in the Americas, compared with the 1,678 randomized in Russia and Georgia (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42). In the Americas, there was an 18% decrease in the primary event of death and heart failure rehospitalization (3.6% in the SPIRO vs. 4.9% in the placebo; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .026). There was essentially no difference in the groups randomized in Russia and Georgia, which had a 1.6% placebo event rate.
And now in 2016, at the recent meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, we were informed that there was no detectable level of blood canrenone, a metabolite of SPIRO, in 30% of the 66 randomized patients in Russia and Georgia, compared with 3% of the patients randomized in the Americas (Cardiology News. Oct 2016. p 8). These data tend to confirm that the patients randomized in Russia and Georgia were either undertreated or not treated. In fact, after examination of the baseline characteristics of the two groups it is possible that many of the patients may not have had heart failure at all.
So what are we left with? One thing that is clear is that the management of TOPCAT was flawed and constitutes an example of how not to run an international clinical trial. Can we make any conclusion about the benefit of SPIRO? TOPCAT initially was powered for over 3,515 patients and 630 events in order to achieve a 85% benefit. The current analysis has now narrowed the population down to 1,787 patients with 522 events with an 18% decrease (P = .02) in the primary end point. During the mean follow-up of 3.3 years there was a placebo mortality of 4.9%, which is impressive in the setting of concomitant beta-blocker and renin angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. The only significant adverse observation was a threefold occurrence in hyperkalemia (potassium greater than 5.5 mmols/L) in the 25.2% in the Americas group treated with SPIRO, compared with the Russian-Georgian patients
Unfortunately the answer is not entirely clear. We all know who HFpEF patients are when they walk into the clinic but identifying them for a clinical trial has been difficult if not impossible. As for me, I will choose to treat their hypertension aggressively (not an easy task) and prevent or suppress their arrhythmias. In that project I will use beta-blockers and SPIRO to prevent their next heart failure episode and hope for the best.
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet, refers to the proverb, “A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last he stays.”
TOPCAT is back again, having randomized its first patient with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) almost 10 years ago for its treatment with spironolactone (SPIRO), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.
The first report of the results of TOPCAT in 2014 indicated that there was no benefit associate with SPIRO therapy tested in the 3,445 patients randomized in 244 sites around the world (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92). A subsequent analysis of data carried out in 2015 reported a striking regional difference in the outcome of patients randomized in the 1,767 patients in the Americas, compared with the 1,678 randomized in Russia and Georgia (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42). In the Americas, there was an 18% decrease in the primary event of death and heart failure rehospitalization (3.6% in the SPIRO vs. 4.9% in the placebo; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .026). There was essentially no difference in the groups randomized in Russia and Georgia, which had a 1.6% placebo event rate.
And now in 2016, at the recent meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, we were informed that there was no detectable level of blood canrenone, a metabolite of SPIRO, in 30% of the 66 randomized patients in Russia and Georgia, compared with 3% of the patients randomized in the Americas (Cardiology News. Oct 2016. p 8). These data tend to confirm that the patients randomized in Russia and Georgia were either undertreated or not treated. In fact, after examination of the baseline characteristics of the two groups it is possible that many of the patients may not have had heart failure at all.
So what are we left with? One thing that is clear is that the management of TOPCAT was flawed and constitutes an example of how not to run an international clinical trial. Can we make any conclusion about the benefit of SPIRO? TOPCAT initially was powered for over 3,515 patients and 630 events in order to achieve a 85% benefit. The current analysis has now narrowed the population down to 1,787 patients with 522 events with an 18% decrease (P = .02) in the primary end point. During the mean follow-up of 3.3 years there was a placebo mortality of 4.9%, which is impressive in the setting of concomitant beta-blocker and renin angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. The only significant adverse observation was a threefold occurrence in hyperkalemia (potassium greater than 5.5 mmols/L) in the 25.2% in the Americas group treated with SPIRO, compared with the Russian-Georgian patients
Unfortunately the answer is not entirely clear. We all know who HFpEF patients are when they walk into the clinic but identifying them for a clinical trial has been difficult if not impossible. As for me, I will choose to treat their hypertension aggressively (not an easy task) and prevent or suppress their arrhythmias. In that project I will use beta-blockers and SPIRO to prevent their next heart failure episode and hope for the best.
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
Beta-blockers curb death risk in patients with primary prevention ICD
ROME – Beta-blocker therapy reduces the risks of all-cause mortality as well as cardiac death in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 35% who get an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention, Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Some physicians have recently urged reconsideration of current guidelines recommending routine use of beta-blockers for prevention of cardiovascular events in certain groups of patients with coronary artery disease, including those with chronic heart failure who have received an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death. And indeed it’s true that the now–relatively old randomized trials of ICDs for primary prevention in patients with chronic heart failure don’t provide any real evidence that beta-blockers reduce mortality in this setting. In fact, the guideline recommendation for beta-blockade has been based upon expert opinion. This was the impetus for Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators to conduct a large retrospective observational study in a contemporary cohort of heart failure patients who received an ICD for primary prevention during a recent 10-year period at the 12 largest centers in France.
Fifteen percent of the 3,975 French ICD recipients did not receive a beta-blocker. They differed from those who did in that they were on average 2 years older, had an absolute 5% lower ejection fraction, and were more likely to also receive cardiac resynchronization therapy. Propensity score matching based on these and 19 other baseline characteristics enabled investigators to assemble a cohort of 541 closely matched patient pairs, explained Dr. Fauchier, professor of cardiology at Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France.
During a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, the risk of all-cause mortality in ICD recipients not on a beta-blocker was 34% higher than in those who were. Moreover, their risk of cardiac death was 50% greater.
In contrast, beta-blocker therapy had no effect on the risks of sudden death or of appropriate or inappropriate shocks.
The finding that beta-blocker therapy doesn’t prevent sudden death in patients with an ICD for primary prevention has not previously been reported. However, it makes sense. The device prevents such events so effectively that a beta-blocker adds nothing further in that regard, according to Dr. Fauchier.
“Beta-blockers should continue to be used widely, as currently recommended, for heart failure in the specific setting of patients with prophylactic ICD implantation. You do not have the benefit for prevention of sudden death, but you still have all the benefit from preventing cardiac death,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
This study was supported by French governmental research grants. Dr. Fauchier reported serving as a consultant to Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Novartis.
ROME – Beta-blocker therapy reduces the risks of all-cause mortality as well as cardiac death in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 35% who get an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention, Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Some physicians have recently urged reconsideration of current guidelines recommending routine use of beta-blockers for prevention of cardiovascular events in certain groups of patients with coronary artery disease, including those with chronic heart failure who have received an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death. And indeed it’s true that the now–relatively old randomized trials of ICDs for primary prevention in patients with chronic heart failure don’t provide any real evidence that beta-blockers reduce mortality in this setting. In fact, the guideline recommendation for beta-blockade has been based upon expert opinion. This was the impetus for Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators to conduct a large retrospective observational study in a contemporary cohort of heart failure patients who received an ICD for primary prevention during a recent 10-year period at the 12 largest centers in France.
Fifteen percent of the 3,975 French ICD recipients did not receive a beta-blocker. They differed from those who did in that they were on average 2 years older, had an absolute 5% lower ejection fraction, and were more likely to also receive cardiac resynchronization therapy. Propensity score matching based on these and 19 other baseline characteristics enabled investigators to assemble a cohort of 541 closely matched patient pairs, explained Dr. Fauchier, professor of cardiology at Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France.
During a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, the risk of all-cause mortality in ICD recipients not on a beta-blocker was 34% higher than in those who were. Moreover, their risk of cardiac death was 50% greater.
In contrast, beta-blocker therapy had no effect on the risks of sudden death or of appropriate or inappropriate shocks.
The finding that beta-blocker therapy doesn’t prevent sudden death in patients with an ICD for primary prevention has not previously been reported. However, it makes sense. The device prevents such events so effectively that a beta-blocker adds nothing further in that regard, according to Dr. Fauchier.
“Beta-blockers should continue to be used widely, as currently recommended, for heart failure in the specific setting of patients with prophylactic ICD implantation. You do not have the benefit for prevention of sudden death, but you still have all the benefit from preventing cardiac death,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
This study was supported by French governmental research grants. Dr. Fauchier reported serving as a consultant to Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Novartis.
ROME – Beta-blocker therapy reduces the risks of all-cause mortality as well as cardiac death in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 35% who get an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for primary prevention, Laurent Fauchier, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Some physicians have recently urged reconsideration of current guidelines recommending routine use of beta-blockers for prevention of cardiovascular events in certain groups of patients with coronary artery disease, including those with chronic heart failure who have received an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death. And indeed it’s true that the now–relatively old randomized trials of ICDs for primary prevention in patients with chronic heart failure don’t provide any real evidence that beta-blockers reduce mortality in this setting. In fact, the guideline recommendation for beta-blockade has been based upon expert opinion. This was the impetus for Dr. Fauchier and coinvestigators to conduct a large retrospective observational study in a contemporary cohort of heart failure patients who received an ICD for primary prevention during a recent 10-year period at the 12 largest centers in France.
Fifteen percent of the 3,975 French ICD recipients did not receive a beta-blocker. They differed from those who did in that they were on average 2 years older, had an absolute 5% lower ejection fraction, and were more likely to also receive cardiac resynchronization therapy. Propensity score matching based on these and 19 other baseline characteristics enabled investigators to assemble a cohort of 541 closely matched patient pairs, explained Dr. Fauchier, professor of cardiology at Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France.
During a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, the risk of all-cause mortality in ICD recipients not on a beta-blocker was 34% higher than in those who were. Moreover, their risk of cardiac death was 50% greater.
In contrast, beta-blocker therapy had no effect on the risks of sudden death or of appropriate or inappropriate shocks.
The finding that beta-blocker therapy doesn’t prevent sudden death in patients with an ICD for primary prevention has not previously been reported. However, it makes sense. The device prevents such events so effectively that a beta-blocker adds nothing further in that regard, according to Dr. Fauchier.
“Beta-blockers should continue to be used widely, as currently recommended, for heart failure in the specific setting of patients with prophylactic ICD implantation. You do not have the benefit for prevention of sudden death, but you still have all the benefit from preventing cardiac death,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
This study was supported by French governmental research grants. Dr. Fauchier reported serving as a consultant to Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Novartis.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who received an ICD for primary prevention and were not on a beta-blocker were at an adjusted 50% increased risk for cardiac death and 34% increased risk for all-cause mortality during 3.2 years of follow-up, but they were at no increased risk for sudden death.
Data source: A retrospective observational study of all of the nearly 4,000 patients who received a primary prevention ICD at the 12 largest French centers during a recent 10-year period.
Disclosures: This study was supported by French governmental research funds. The presenter reported serving as a consultant to Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Novartis.
Palliative care boosts heart failure patient outcomes
ORLANDO – Systematic introduction of palliative care interventions for patients with advanced heart failure improved patients’ quality of life and spurred their development of advanced-care preferences in a pair of independently performed, controlled, pilot studies.
But, despite demonstrating the ability of palliative-care interventions to help heart failure patients during their final months of life, the findings raised questions about the generalizability and reproducibility of palliative-care interventions that may depend on the skills and experience of the individual specialists who deliver the palliative care.
“Palliative care for patients with cardiovascular disease is in desperate need of good-quality evidence,” commented Larry A, Allen, MD, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for one of the two studies presented at the meeting. “We need large, randomized trials with clinical outcomes to look at patient outcomes from palliative-care interventions.”
The patients average 71 years old, about half were women, and about 40% were African Americans. They had been diagnosed with heart failure for an average of more than 5 years, all had advanced heart failure, about 60% spent at least half of their time awake immobilized in a bed or chair, and they had average NT-proBNP blood levels of greater than 10,000 pg/mL.
After 24 weeks of intervention, the palliative-care program produced both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in two different measures of health-related quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Palliative Care (FACIT-PAL). The KCCQ showed the palliative care intervention linked with an average rise of more than 9 points compared with patients in the control arm after adjustment for age and sex, a statistically significant increase on a scale where a 5-point rise is considered clinically meaningful. The FACIT-PAL showed an average, adjusted 11-point rise linked with the intervention, a statistically significant increase on a scale where an increase of at least 10 is judged clinically meaningful, reported Dr. Rogers, a heart failure cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University.
The palliative-care intervention also led to significant improvements in measures of spirituality, depression, and anxiety, but intervention had no impact on mortality.
“I like these endpoints and the idea that we can make quality-of-life better. These are very sick patients, with a predicted 6-month mortality of 50%. Patients reach a time when they don’t want to live longer but want better life quality for the days they still have,” he said in an interview.
The second report came from a single-center pilot study of 50 patients enrolled when they were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and had at least one addition risk factor for poor prognosis such as age of at least 81 years, renal dysfunction, or a prior heart failure hospitalization within the past year. Patients randomized to the intervention arm underwent a structured evaluation based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide and performed by a social worker experienced in palliative care and embedded in the heart failure clinical team. The primary endpoint of the SWAP-HF (Social Worker–Aided Palliative Care Intervention in High Risk Patients with Heart Failure) study was clinical-level documentation of advanced-care preferences by 6 months after the program began.
“Although more comprehensive, multidisciplinary palliative care interventions may also be effective, the focused approach [used in this study] may represent a cost-effective and scalable method for shepherding limited specialty resources to enhance the delivery of patient-centered care,” Dr. Desai said. In other words, a program with a social worker costs less than a two-person staff with a palliative-care physician and nurse practitioner.
Despite its relative simplicity, the SWAP-HF intervention had some unique aspects that make it generalizability uncertain, commented Dr. Allen. The embedding of a social worker on the heart failure team placed a professional with a “good understanding of social context” right on the scene with everyone else delivering care to the heart failure patient, a good strategy for minimizing fragmentation, he said. In addition, the place where the study was done, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, “is not your average hospital,” he noted,
In addition, the timing of the intervention studied during hospitalization may be problematic. Clinicians need to “be careful about patients making long-term decisions” about their care while they are hospitalized, a time when patients can be “ill, confused, and scared.” He cited recent findings from a study of hospital-based palliative-care interventions for family members of patients with chronic critical illness that did not reduce anxiety or depression symptoms among the treated family members and may have increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (JAMA. 2016 July 5;374[1]:51-62).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
It’s very exciting to have these two studies presented at the Heart Failure Society of America’s annual meeting. Palliative-care research now receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, but consistently and successfully integrating palliative care into heart failure management still has a long way to go. In 2004, my colleagues and I published a set of consensus recommendations on how to apply palliative care methods to patients with advanced heart failure and what research needs existed for the field (J Card Fail. 2004 June;10[3]:200-9). Today, 12 years later, many of those research needs remain inadequately addressed.
Sarah J. Goodlin, MD , is chief of geriatrics at the Portland (Ore.) VA Medical Center. She had no disclosures. She made these comments as the designated discussant for Dr. Rogers’ report.
It’s very exciting to have these two studies presented at the Heart Failure Society of America’s annual meeting. Palliative-care research now receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, but consistently and successfully integrating palliative care into heart failure management still has a long way to go. In 2004, my colleagues and I published a set of consensus recommendations on how to apply palliative care methods to patients with advanced heart failure and what research needs existed for the field (J Card Fail. 2004 June;10[3]:200-9). Today, 12 years later, many of those research needs remain inadequately addressed.
Sarah J. Goodlin, MD , is chief of geriatrics at the Portland (Ore.) VA Medical Center. She had no disclosures. She made these comments as the designated discussant for Dr. Rogers’ report.
It’s very exciting to have these two studies presented at the Heart Failure Society of America’s annual meeting. Palliative-care research now receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, but consistently and successfully integrating palliative care into heart failure management still has a long way to go. In 2004, my colleagues and I published a set of consensus recommendations on how to apply palliative care methods to patients with advanced heart failure and what research needs existed for the field (J Card Fail. 2004 June;10[3]:200-9). Today, 12 years later, many of those research needs remain inadequately addressed.
Sarah J. Goodlin, MD , is chief of geriatrics at the Portland (Ore.) VA Medical Center. She had no disclosures. She made these comments as the designated discussant for Dr. Rogers’ report.
ORLANDO – Systematic introduction of palliative care interventions for patients with advanced heart failure improved patients’ quality of life and spurred their development of advanced-care preferences in a pair of independently performed, controlled, pilot studies.
But, despite demonstrating the ability of palliative-care interventions to help heart failure patients during their final months of life, the findings raised questions about the generalizability and reproducibility of palliative-care interventions that may depend on the skills and experience of the individual specialists who deliver the palliative care.
“Palliative care for patients with cardiovascular disease is in desperate need of good-quality evidence,” commented Larry A, Allen, MD, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for one of the two studies presented at the meeting. “We need large, randomized trials with clinical outcomes to look at patient outcomes from palliative-care interventions.”
The patients average 71 years old, about half were women, and about 40% were African Americans. They had been diagnosed with heart failure for an average of more than 5 years, all had advanced heart failure, about 60% spent at least half of their time awake immobilized in a bed or chair, and they had average NT-proBNP blood levels of greater than 10,000 pg/mL.
After 24 weeks of intervention, the palliative-care program produced both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in two different measures of health-related quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Palliative Care (FACIT-PAL). The KCCQ showed the palliative care intervention linked with an average rise of more than 9 points compared with patients in the control arm after adjustment for age and sex, a statistically significant increase on a scale where a 5-point rise is considered clinically meaningful. The FACIT-PAL showed an average, adjusted 11-point rise linked with the intervention, a statistically significant increase on a scale where an increase of at least 10 is judged clinically meaningful, reported Dr. Rogers, a heart failure cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University.
The palliative-care intervention also led to significant improvements in measures of spirituality, depression, and anxiety, but intervention had no impact on mortality.
“I like these endpoints and the idea that we can make quality-of-life better. These are very sick patients, with a predicted 6-month mortality of 50%. Patients reach a time when they don’t want to live longer but want better life quality for the days they still have,” he said in an interview.
The second report came from a single-center pilot study of 50 patients enrolled when they were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and had at least one addition risk factor for poor prognosis such as age of at least 81 years, renal dysfunction, or a prior heart failure hospitalization within the past year. Patients randomized to the intervention arm underwent a structured evaluation based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide and performed by a social worker experienced in palliative care and embedded in the heart failure clinical team. The primary endpoint of the SWAP-HF (Social Worker–Aided Palliative Care Intervention in High Risk Patients with Heart Failure) study was clinical-level documentation of advanced-care preferences by 6 months after the program began.
“Although more comprehensive, multidisciplinary palliative care interventions may also be effective, the focused approach [used in this study] may represent a cost-effective and scalable method for shepherding limited specialty resources to enhance the delivery of patient-centered care,” Dr. Desai said. In other words, a program with a social worker costs less than a two-person staff with a palliative-care physician and nurse practitioner.
Despite its relative simplicity, the SWAP-HF intervention had some unique aspects that make it generalizability uncertain, commented Dr. Allen. The embedding of a social worker on the heart failure team placed a professional with a “good understanding of social context” right on the scene with everyone else delivering care to the heart failure patient, a good strategy for minimizing fragmentation, he said. In addition, the place where the study was done, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, “is not your average hospital,” he noted,
In addition, the timing of the intervention studied during hospitalization may be problematic. Clinicians need to “be careful about patients making long-term decisions” about their care while they are hospitalized, a time when patients can be “ill, confused, and scared.” He cited recent findings from a study of hospital-based palliative-care interventions for family members of patients with chronic critical illness that did not reduce anxiety or depression symptoms among the treated family members and may have increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (JAMA. 2016 July 5;374[1]:51-62).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Systematic introduction of palliative care interventions for patients with advanced heart failure improved patients’ quality of life and spurred their development of advanced-care preferences in a pair of independently performed, controlled, pilot studies.
But, despite demonstrating the ability of palliative-care interventions to help heart failure patients during their final months of life, the findings raised questions about the generalizability and reproducibility of palliative-care interventions that may depend on the skills and experience of the individual specialists who deliver the palliative care.
“Palliative care for patients with cardiovascular disease is in desperate need of good-quality evidence,” commented Larry A, Allen, MD, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for one of the two studies presented at the meeting. “We need large, randomized trials with clinical outcomes to look at patient outcomes from palliative-care interventions.”
The patients average 71 years old, about half were women, and about 40% were African Americans. They had been diagnosed with heart failure for an average of more than 5 years, all had advanced heart failure, about 60% spent at least half of their time awake immobilized in a bed or chair, and they had average NT-proBNP blood levels of greater than 10,000 pg/mL.
After 24 weeks of intervention, the palliative-care program produced both statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in two different measures of health-related quality of life, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Palliative Care (FACIT-PAL). The KCCQ showed the palliative care intervention linked with an average rise of more than 9 points compared with patients in the control arm after adjustment for age and sex, a statistically significant increase on a scale where a 5-point rise is considered clinically meaningful. The FACIT-PAL showed an average, adjusted 11-point rise linked with the intervention, a statistically significant increase on a scale where an increase of at least 10 is judged clinically meaningful, reported Dr. Rogers, a heart failure cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University.
The palliative-care intervention also led to significant improvements in measures of spirituality, depression, and anxiety, but intervention had no impact on mortality.
“I like these endpoints and the idea that we can make quality-of-life better. These are very sick patients, with a predicted 6-month mortality of 50%. Patients reach a time when they don’t want to live longer but want better life quality for the days they still have,” he said in an interview.
The second report came from a single-center pilot study of 50 patients enrolled when they were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and had at least one addition risk factor for poor prognosis such as age of at least 81 years, renal dysfunction, or a prior heart failure hospitalization within the past year. Patients randomized to the intervention arm underwent a structured evaluation based on the Serious Illness Conversation Guide and performed by a social worker experienced in palliative care and embedded in the heart failure clinical team. The primary endpoint of the SWAP-HF (Social Worker–Aided Palliative Care Intervention in High Risk Patients with Heart Failure) study was clinical-level documentation of advanced-care preferences by 6 months after the program began.
“Although more comprehensive, multidisciplinary palliative care interventions may also be effective, the focused approach [used in this study] may represent a cost-effective and scalable method for shepherding limited specialty resources to enhance the delivery of patient-centered care,” Dr. Desai said. In other words, a program with a social worker costs less than a two-person staff with a palliative-care physician and nurse practitioner.
Despite its relative simplicity, the SWAP-HF intervention had some unique aspects that make it generalizability uncertain, commented Dr. Allen. The embedding of a social worker on the heart failure team placed a professional with a “good understanding of social context” right on the scene with everyone else delivering care to the heart failure patient, a good strategy for minimizing fragmentation, he said. In addition, the place where the study was done, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, “is not your average hospital,” he noted,
In addition, the timing of the intervention studied during hospitalization may be problematic. Clinicians need to “be careful about patients making long-term decisions” about their care while they are hospitalized, a time when patients can be “ill, confused, and scared.” He cited recent findings from a study of hospital-based palliative-care interventions for family members of patients with chronic critical illness that did not reduce anxiety or depression symptoms among the treated family members and may have increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (JAMA. 2016 July 5;374[1]:51-62).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Palliative care measures boosted patients’ Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score by an average of 9 points over that of controls.
Data source: PAL-HF, a single-center study with 150 randomized patients with heart failure and SWAP-HF, a single-center study with 50 randomized patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Rogers, Dr. Allen, and Dr. Desai had no relevant disclosures.
Elevated troponins are serious business, even without an MI
Sometimes it seems like cardiac troponin testing has become nearly as ubiquitous as the CBC and the BMP. Concern over atypical presentations of MI has contributed to widespread use in emergency departments and hospitalized patients. But once the test comes back elevated, what do you do with that information?
Typically, the next step is to consult Cardiology, which is a reasonable request with or without a suspicion of MI. Frequently, invasive management is not an option; or perhaps the diagnosis is “type 2 MI.”1
A growing body of evidence is making it clear that any elevation in cardiac troponin is a serious predictor of risk and that the risk is highest if the patient is not having an MI.2 My colleagues and I recently conducted a cohort study of more than 700 veterans at our VA Medical Center addressing this question. We evaluated long-term mortality (6 years) comparing veterans who were diagnosed with MI with those who had troponin elevation and no clinical MI. The diagnostic determination was made for all subjects prospectively as part of a quality improvement project that sought to better care for MI patients at our facility. (In some cases, only single troponin values were measured so we cannot say that all patients in our investigation had a true type 2 MI.)
We found that veterans with an elevation in troponin that was not caused by MI had higher risk of mortality risk than did MI patients.3 The risk started to diverge at 30 days and was 42.0% at 1 year, compared with 29.0% for those with MI (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.78). This risk continued to separate and, at 6 years, was 77.7% vs. 58.7% (OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56). Our observations agree with other recent publications; what we tried to do in advancing the literature was to construct a robust Cox proportional hazard model to try to better understand if the risk seen in these patients is just because of their being “sicker.”
We tried to capture a number of other acute illness states with variables including TIMI score, being in hospice care, having a “do not resuscitate” order, being in the ICU, receiving CPR, and having a fever or leukocytosis, etc. Despite this modeling, elevated troponin remained a significant predictor of risk. While several variables we modeled remained significant predictors of mortality, their distribution between our two cohorts did not explain the excess mortality risk associated with non-MI troponin.
Unfortunately, there are no viable treatment options specific for patients with non-MI troponin elevation and type 2 MI. Given that the causes are multiple and heterogeneous, there may not be a common pathway to target for reducing cardiovascular risk. Regardless, the observation of non-MI troponin or type 2 MI should be taken seriously and not be ignored.
In selected patients, particularly those without known coronary artery disease, it may be appropriate to perform diagnostic testing or risk assessment with noninvasive imaging prior to discharge. Those with coronary artery disease should be treated aggressively for prevention of future cardiovascular events with both medical therapy and risk factor reduction.
1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1581-98.
2. Alcalai R, Planer D, Culhaoglu A, Osman A, Pollak A and Lotan C. Acute coronary syndrome vs nonspecific troponin elevation: clinical predictors and survival analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:276-81.
3. Winchester DE, Burke L, Agarwal N, Schmalfuss C and Pepine CJ. Predictors of short- and long-term mortality in hospitalized veterans with elevated troponin. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun 3. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2619.
David Winchester, MD, is assistant professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Florida (Gainesville), and practices general cardiology at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville.
Sometimes it seems like cardiac troponin testing has become nearly as ubiquitous as the CBC and the BMP. Concern over atypical presentations of MI has contributed to widespread use in emergency departments and hospitalized patients. But once the test comes back elevated, what do you do with that information?
Typically, the next step is to consult Cardiology, which is a reasonable request with or without a suspicion of MI. Frequently, invasive management is not an option; or perhaps the diagnosis is “type 2 MI.”1
A growing body of evidence is making it clear that any elevation in cardiac troponin is a serious predictor of risk and that the risk is highest if the patient is not having an MI.2 My colleagues and I recently conducted a cohort study of more than 700 veterans at our VA Medical Center addressing this question. We evaluated long-term mortality (6 years) comparing veterans who were diagnosed with MI with those who had troponin elevation and no clinical MI. The diagnostic determination was made for all subjects prospectively as part of a quality improvement project that sought to better care for MI patients at our facility. (In some cases, only single troponin values were measured so we cannot say that all patients in our investigation had a true type 2 MI.)
We found that veterans with an elevation in troponin that was not caused by MI had higher risk of mortality risk than did MI patients.3 The risk started to diverge at 30 days and was 42.0% at 1 year, compared with 29.0% for those with MI (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.78). This risk continued to separate and, at 6 years, was 77.7% vs. 58.7% (OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56). Our observations agree with other recent publications; what we tried to do in advancing the literature was to construct a robust Cox proportional hazard model to try to better understand if the risk seen in these patients is just because of their being “sicker.”
We tried to capture a number of other acute illness states with variables including TIMI score, being in hospice care, having a “do not resuscitate” order, being in the ICU, receiving CPR, and having a fever or leukocytosis, etc. Despite this modeling, elevated troponin remained a significant predictor of risk. While several variables we modeled remained significant predictors of mortality, their distribution between our two cohorts did not explain the excess mortality risk associated with non-MI troponin.
Unfortunately, there are no viable treatment options specific for patients with non-MI troponin elevation and type 2 MI. Given that the causes are multiple and heterogeneous, there may not be a common pathway to target for reducing cardiovascular risk. Regardless, the observation of non-MI troponin or type 2 MI should be taken seriously and not be ignored.
In selected patients, particularly those without known coronary artery disease, it may be appropriate to perform diagnostic testing or risk assessment with noninvasive imaging prior to discharge. Those with coronary artery disease should be treated aggressively for prevention of future cardiovascular events with both medical therapy and risk factor reduction.
1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1581-98.
2. Alcalai R, Planer D, Culhaoglu A, Osman A, Pollak A and Lotan C. Acute coronary syndrome vs nonspecific troponin elevation: clinical predictors and survival analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:276-81.
3. Winchester DE, Burke L, Agarwal N, Schmalfuss C and Pepine CJ. Predictors of short- and long-term mortality in hospitalized veterans with elevated troponin. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun 3. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2619.
David Winchester, MD, is assistant professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Florida (Gainesville), and practices general cardiology at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville.
Sometimes it seems like cardiac troponin testing has become nearly as ubiquitous as the CBC and the BMP. Concern over atypical presentations of MI has contributed to widespread use in emergency departments and hospitalized patients. But once the test comes back elevated, what do you do with that information?
Typically, the next step is to consult Cardiology, which is a reasonable request with or without a suspicion of MI. Frequently, invasive management is not an option; or perhaps the diagnosis is “type 2 MI.”1
A growing body of evidence is making it clear that any elevation in cardiac troponin is a serious predictor of risk and that the risk is highest if the patient is not having an MI.2 My colleagues and I recently conducted a cohort study of more than 700 veterans at our VA Medical Center addressing this question. We evaluated long-term mortality (6 years) comparing veterans who were diagnosed with MI with those who had troponin elevation and no clinical MI. The diagnostic determination was made for all subjects prospectively as part of a quality improvement project that sought to better care for MI patients at our facility. (In some cases, only single troponin values were measured so we cannot say that all patients in our investigation had a true type 2 MI.)
We found that veterans with an elevation in troponin that was not caused by MI had higher risk of mortality risk than did MI patients.3 The risk started to diverge at 30 days and was 42.0% at 1 year, compared with 29.0% for those with MI (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.78). This risk continued to separate and, at 6 years, was 77.7% vs. 58.7% (OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30-0.56). Our observations agree with other recent publications; what we tried to do in advancing the literature was to construct a robust Cox proportional hazard model to try to better understand if the risk seen in these patients is just because of their being “sicker.”
We tried to capture a number of other acute illness states with variables including TIMI score, being in hospice care, having a “do not resuscitate” order, being in the ICU, receiving CPR, and having a fever or leukocytosis, etc. Despite this modeling, elevated troponin remained a significant predictor of risk. While several variables we modeled remained significant predictors of mortality, their distribution between our two cohorts did not explain the excess mortality risk associated with non-MI troponin.
Unfortunately, there are no viable treatment options specific for patients with non-MI troponin elevation and type 2 MI. Given that the causes are multiple and heterogeneous, there may not be a common pathway to target for reducing cardiovascular risk. Regardless, the observation of non-MI troponin or type 2 MI should be taken seriously and not be ignored.
In selected patients, particularly those without known coronary artery disease, it may be appropriate to perform diagnostic testing or risk assessment with noninvasive imaging prior to discharge. Those with coronary artery disease should be treated aggressively for prevention of future cardiovascular events with both medical therapy and risk factor reduction.
1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1581-98.
2. Alcalai R, Planer D, Culhaoglu A, Osman A, Pollak A and Lotan C. Acute coronary syndrome vs nonspecific troponin elevation: clinical predictors and survival analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:276-81.
3. Winchester DE, Burke L, Agarwal N, Schmalfuss C and Pepine CJ. Predictors of short- and long-term mortality in hospitalized veterans with elevated troponin. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun 3. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2619.
David Winchester, MD, is assistant professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Florida (Gainesville), and practices general cardiology at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville.
Heart failure risk with individual NSAIDs examined in study
Nine popular painkillers – including traditional NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors – are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults, based on data from a case-control study of approximately 92,000 hospital admissions. The findings were published online Sept. 28 in BMJ.
Although data from previous large studies suggest that high doses of NSAIDs as well as COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, “there is still limited information on the risk of heart failure associated with the use of individual NSAIDs in clinical practice,” wrote Andrea Arfè of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i4857 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4857).
The researchers reviewed data from five electronic health databases in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom as part of the SOS (Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) project and conducted a nested, case-control study including 92,163 hospital admissions for heart failure and 8,246,403 controls matched for age, sex, and year of study entry. The study included 23 traditional NSAIDs and four selective COX-2 inhibitors.
Overall, individual use of any of nine different NSAIDs within 14 days was associated with a nearly 20% higher likelihood of hospital admission for heart failure, compared with NSAID use more than 183 days in the past (odds ratio, 1.19). For seven traditional NSAIDS (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and the COX-2 inhibitors etoricoxib and rofecoxib, the odds ratios for heart failure with current use ranged from 1.16 for naproxen to 1.83 for ketorolac, compared with past use.
In addition, the odds of hospitalization for heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib when dosed at two or more daily dose equivalents, the researchers noted. There was no increase in the odds of hospitalization for heart failure with celecoxib when dosed at standard levels, but “indomethacin and etoricoxib seemed to increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, even if used at medium doses,” they said. Other lesser-used NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk, but it was not statistically significant.
“The effect of individual NSAIDs could depend on a complex interaction of pharmacological properties, including duration and extent of platelet inhibition, extent of blood pressure increase, and properties possibly unique to the molecule,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including misclassification of outcomes and the observational nature of the study, which prevents conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. However, “Because any potential increased risk could have a considerable impact on public health, the risk effect estimates provided by this study may help inform both clinical practice and regulatory activities,” they said.
The study was funded in part by the European Community’s seventh Framework Programme. Mr. Arfè had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Schwabe, and Novartis.
This report provides additional weight backing the association between increased risk of heart failure with NSAID use and gives better insight on the dose-response relationship between individual NSAIDs and heart failure. However, beyond that, its clinical impact is hurt by the lack of data on the magnitude of excess absolute risk of heart failure with NSAID use, which varies according to baseline cardiovascular risk.
Even though the risk of heart failure associated with NSAID use in the study occurred independent of a history of heart failure, it still is prudent to restrict NSAID use in patients with heart failure because of the high risk noted in this group in other studies.
The widespread use and ease of access to NSAIDs fuels the common misconception that NSAIDs are harmless drugs that are safe for everyone, and this warrants a more restrictive policy by regulatory authorities on the availability of NSAIDs and requirements for health care professionals providing advice on their use.
Gunnar H. Gislason, MD, PhD, is a professor of cardiology at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark, and Christian Torp-Pedersen, MD, is a professor of cardiology at Aalborg (Denmark) University. Dr. Gislason had no disclosures and Dr. Torp-Pedersen advises Bayer on anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Their remarks are taken from an editorial accompanying the study by Mr. Arfè and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i5163 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5163).
This report provides additional weight backing the association between increased risk of heart failure with NSAID use and gives better insight on the dose-response relationship between individual NSAIDs and heart failure. However, beyond that, its clinical impact is hurt by the lack of data on the magnitude of excess absolute risk of heart failure with NSAID use, which varies according to baseline cardiovascular risk.
Even though the risk of heart failure associated with NSAID use in the study occurred independent of a history of heart failure, it still is prudent to restrict NSAID use in patients with heart failure because of the high risk noted in this group in other studies.
The widespread use and ease of access to NSAIDs fuels the common misconception that NSAIDs are harmless drugs that are safe for everyone, and this warrants a more restrictive policy by regulatory authorities on the availability of NSAIDs and requirements for health care professionals providing advice on their use.
Gunnar H. Gislason, MD, PhD, is a professor of cardiology at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark, and Christian Torp-Pedersen, MD, is a professor of cardiology at Aalborg (Denmark) University. Dr. Gislason had no disclosures and Dr. Torp-Pedersen advises Bayer on anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Their remarks are taken from an editorial accompanying the study by Mr. Arfè and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i5163 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5163).
This report provides additional weight backing the association between increased risk of heart failure with NSAID use and gives better insight on the dose-response relationship between individual NSAIDs and heart failure. However, beyond that, its clinical impact is hurt by the lack of data on the magnitude of excess absolute risk of heart failure with NSAID use, which varies according to baseline cardiovascular risk.
Even though the risk of heart failure associated with NSAID use in the study occurred independent of a history of heart failure, it still is prudent to restrict NSAID use in patients with heart failure because of the high risk noted in this group in other studies.
The widespread use and ease of access to NSAIDs fuels the common misconception that NSAIDs are harmless drugs that are safe for everyone, and this warrants a more restrictive policy by regulatory authorities on the availability of NSAIDs and requirements for health care professionals providing advice on their use.
Gunnar H. Gislason, MD, PhD, is a professor of cardiology at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark, and Christian Torp-Pedersen, MD, is a professor of cardiology at Aalborg (Denmark) University. Dr. Gislason had no disclosures and Dr. Torp-Pedersen advises Bayer on anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Their remarks are taken from an editorial accompanying the study by Mr. Arfè and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i5163 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5163).
Nine popular painkillers – including traditional NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors – are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults, based on data from a case-control study of approximately 92,000 hospital admissions. The findings were published online Sept. 28 in BMJ.
Although data from previous large studies suggest that high doses of NSAIDs as well as COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, “there is still limited information on the risk of heart failure associated with the use of individual NSAIDs in clinical practice,” wrote Andrea Arfè of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i4857 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4857).
The researchers reviewed data from five electronic health databases in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom as part of the SOS (Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) project and conducted a nested, case-control study including 92,163 hospital admissions for heart failure and 8,246,403 controls matched for age, sex, and year of study entry. The study included 23 traditional NSAIDs and four selective COX-2 inhibitors.
Overall, individual use of any of nine different NSAIDs within 14 days was associated with a nearly 20% higher likelihood of hospital admission for heart failure, compared with NSAID use more than 183 days in the past (odds ratio, 1.19). For seven traditional NSAIDS (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and the COX-2 inhibitors etoricoxib and rofecoxib, the odds ratios for heart failure with current use ranged from 1.16 for naproxen to 1.83 for ketorolac, compared with past use.
In addition, the odds of hospitalization for heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib when dosed at two or more daily dose equivalents, the researchers noted. There was no increase in the odds of hospitalization for heart failure with celecoxib when dosed at standard levels, but “indomethacin and etoricoxib seemed to increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, even if used at medium doses,” they said. Other lesser-used NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk, but it was not statistically significant.
“The effect of individual NSAIDs could depend on a complex interaction of pharmacological properties, including duration and extent of platelet inhibition, extent of blood pressure increase, and properties possibly unique to the molecule,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including misclassification of outcomes and the observational nature of the study, which prevents conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. However, “Because any potential increased risk could have a considerable impact on public health, the risk effect estimates provided by this study may help inform both clinical practice and regulatory activities,” they said.
The study was funded in part by the European Community’s seventh Framework Programme. Mr. Arfè had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Schwabe, and Novartis.
Nine popular painkillers – including traditional NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors – are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults, based on data from a case-control study of approximately 92,000 hospital admissions. The findings were published online Sept. 28 in BMJ.
Although data from previous large studies suggest that high doses of NSAIDs as well as COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, “there is still limited information on the risk of heart failure associated with the use of individual NSAIDs in clinical practice,” wrote Andrea Arfè of the University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, and his colleagues (BMJ. 2016 Sep;354:i4857 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4857).
The researchers reviewed data from five electronic health databases in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom as part of the SOS (Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) project and conducted a nested, case-control study including 92,163 hospital admissions for heart failure and 8,246,403 controls matched for age, sex, and year of study entry. The study included 23 traditional NSAIDs and four selective COX-2 inhibitors.
Overall, individual use of any of nine different NSAIDs within 14 days was associated with a nearly 20% higher likelihood of hospital admission for heart failure, compared with NSAID use more than 183 days in the past (odds ratio, 1.19). For seven traditional NSAIDS (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and the COX-2 inhibitors etoricoxib and rofecoxib, the odds ratios for heart failure with current use ranged from 1.16 for naproxen to 1.83 for ketorolac, compared with past use.
In addition, the odds of hospitalization for heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib when dosed at two or more daily dose equivalents, the researchers noted. There was no increase in the odds of hospitalization for heart failure with celecoxib when dosed at standard levels, but “indomethacin and etoricoxib seemed to increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure, even if used at medium doses,” they said. Other lesser-used NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk, but it was not statistically significant.
“The effect of individual NSAIDs could depend on a complex interaction of pharmacological properties, including duration and extent of platelet inhibition, extent of blood pressure increase, and properties possibly unique to the molecule,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors including misclassification of outcomes and the observational nature of the study, which prevents conclusions about cause and effect, the researchers noted. However, “Because any potential increased risk could have a considerable impact on public health, the risk effect estimates provided by this study may help inform both clinical practice and regulatory activities,” they said.
The study was funded in part by the European Community’s seventh Framework Programme. Mr. Arfè had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Schwabe, and Novartis.
FROM BMJ
Key clinical point: Patients taking high doses of certain NSAIDS had significantly higher odds of hospital admission for heart failure, compared with controls not currently taking the medications.
Major finding: The odds of hospitalization for heart failure increased by 19% overall for adults currently using certain NSAIDS and doubled for users of certain NSAIDs at high doses.
Data source: The data come from approximately 10 million hospital admissions taken from databases in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Disclosures: The study was funded in part by the European Community’s seventh Framework Programme. Mr. Arfè had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Schwabe, and Novartis.
Reimbursement hurdles hinder Entresto use in HFrEF
ORLANDO – Use of sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) became a class I recommendation in both the U.S. and European heart failure guidelines in May 2016, but virtually all U.S. health insurers continue to regard the potent and effective sacubitril/valsartan formulation as a second-line treatment that needs special preauthorization before patients receive reimbursement for the prescription.
“What is really morally sad is that U.S. payers are requiring physicians to fill out extensive, patient-by-patient paperwork” to allow patients with HFrEF to receive health insurance coverage for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), Milton Packer, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“It is very difficult to understand why third-party payers would intentionally try to slow adoption of this life-saving drug simply because it is considered expensive. It is much cheaper than many drugs they cover for patients with cancer that don’t work half as well,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
The “excessive paperwork” for insurers when starting patients on sacubitril/valsartan is a “new and unique phenomenon among the cardiovascular drugs I prescribe,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona in Tuscon. “This approach by insurers seems based on cost; they do not want to pay” for sacubitril/valsartan, and to successfully arrange for coverage patients need to exactly match the enrollment criteria used in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor – Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial ), the pivotal study that supplied the evidence base for making sacubitril/valsartan a class I agent for treating HFrEF.
“I don’t put some HFrEF patients on sacubitil/valsartan just because they don’t meet the trial’s entry criteria,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview. “Insurers seem to scrutinize every single parameter to make sure patients match the PARADIGM-HF patients. Coverage is denied if their BNP [brain natriuretic peptide] level is too low.” Dr. Sweitzer added that in one instance she had to submit a second preauthorization to simply uptitrate the dosage of sacubitril/valsartan she wanted a patient to receive.
“Based on the data it seems like you could easily identify HFrEF patients who are good candidates for sacubitril/valsartan, but your hands are tied by payers because you can’t prescribe it until you’ve first tried something else, and even then you still need to deal with a lot of paperwork,” agreed Robert O. Bonow, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The paperwork burden is really cumbersome for physicians with busy practices; it impedes taking care of patients,” Dr. Bonow said in an interview.
Sales figures for sacubitril/valsartan that the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, has reported since the agent received U.S. marketing approval a little over a year ago reflect these challenges in prescribing the compound to patients. During the first quarter of 2016, Novartis reported $17 million in worldwide sales of the agent, followed by $32 million in worldwide sales during the second quarter of 2016, through June 30. With a total of $49 million in sacubitril/valsartan sales during the first 6 months of 2016, it seems like Novartis may be challenged to meet its stated target of $200 million in total sales of the compound during 2016. In April, one commentator called the $17 million sales figure for first quarter 2016 “an astonishingly small amount for a drug that was widely expected to be a blockbuster.”
Dr. Packer has in the past been a consultant to Novartis and was one of the lead investigators for the PARADIGM-HF trial. He said that currently he has no financial relationship with Novartis but he does serve as a consultant to several other drug companies. Dr. Sweitzer has received research support from Novartis and was an investigator for PARADIGM-HF. Dr. Bonow has been a consultant to Gilead.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Use of sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) became a class I recommendation in both the U.S. and European heart failure guidelines in May 2016, but virtually all U.S. health insurers continue to regard the potent and effective sacubitril/valsartan formulation as a second-line treatment that needs special preauthorization before patients receive reimbursement for the prescription.
“What is really morally sad is that U.S. payers are requiring physicians to fill out extensive, patient-by-patient paperwork” to allow patients with HFrEF to receive health insurance coverage for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), Milton Packer, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“It is very difficult to understand why third-party payers would intentionally try to slow adoption of this life-saving drug simply because it is considered expensive. It is much cheaper than many drugs they cover for patients with cancer that don’t work half as well,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
The “excessive paperwork” for insurers when starting patients on sacubitril/valsartan is a “new and unique phenomenon among the cardiovascular drugs I prescribe,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona in Tuscon. “This approach by insurers seems based on cost; they do not want to pay” for sacubitril/valsartan, and to successfully arrange for coverage patients need to exactly match the enrollment criteria used in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor – Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial ), the pivotal study that supplied the evidence base for making sacubitril/valsartan a class I agent for treating HFrEF.
“I don’t put some HFrEF patients on sacubitil/valsartan just because they don’t meet the trial’s entry criteria,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview. “Insurers seem to scrutinize every single parameter to make sure patients match the PARADIGM-HF patients. Coverage is denied if their BNP [brain natriuretic peptide] level is too low.” Dr. Sweitzer added that in one instance she had to submit a second preauthorization to simply uptitrate the dosage of sacubitril/valsartan she wanted a patient to receive.
“Based on the data it seems like you could easily identify HFrEF patients who are good candidates for sacubitril/valsartan, but your hands are tied by payers because you can’t prescribe it until you’ve first tried something else, and even then you still need to deal with a lot of paperwork,” agreed Robert O. Bonow, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The paperwork burden is really cumbersome for physicians with busy practices; it impedes taking care of patients,” Dr. Bonow said in an interview.
Sales figures for sacubitril/valsartan that the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, has reported since the agent received U.S. marketing approval a little over a year ago reflect these challenges in prescribing the compound to patients. During the first quarter of 2016, Novartis reported $17 million in worldwide sales of the agent, followed by $32 million in worldwide sales during the second quarter of 2016, through June 30. With a total of $49 million in sacubitril/valsartan sales during the first 6 months of 2016, it seems like Novartis may be challenged to meet its stated target of $200 million in total sales of the compound during 2016. In April, one commentator called the $17 million sales figure for first quarter 2016 “an astonishingly small amount for a drug that was widely expected to be a blockbuster.”
Dr. Packer has in the past been a consultant to Novartis and was one of the lead investigators for the PARADIGM-HF trial. He said that currently he has no financial relationship with Novartis but he does serve as a consultant to several other drug companies. Dr. Sweitzer has received research support from Novartis and was an investigator for PARADIGM-HF. Dr. Bonow has been a consultant to Gilead.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Use of sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) became a class I recommendation in both the U.S. and European heart failure guidelines in May 2016, but virtually all U.S. health insurers continue to regard the potent and effective sacubitril/valsartan formulation as a second-line treatment that needs special preauthorization before patients receive reimbursement for the prescription.
“What is really morally sad is that U.S. payers are requiring physicians to fill out extensive, patient-by-patient paperwork” to allow patients with HFrEF to receive health insurance coverage for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), Milton Packer, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“It is very difficult to understand why third-party payers would intentionally try to slow adoption of this life-saving drug simply because it is considered expensive. It is much cheaper than many drugs they cover for patients with cancer that don’t work half as well,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
The “excessive paperwork” for insurers when starting patients on sacubitril/valsartan is a “new and unique phenomenon among the cardiovascular drugs I prescribe,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona in Tuscon. “This approach by insurers seems based on cost; they do not want to pay” for sacubitril/valsartan, and to successfully arrange for coverage patients need to exactly match the enrollment criteria used in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor – Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial ), the pivotal study that supplied the evidence base for making sacubitril/valsartan a class I agent for treating HFrEF.
“I don’t put some HFrEF patients on sacubitil/valsartan just because they don’t meet the trial’s entry criteria,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview. “Insurers seem to scrutinize every single parameter to make sure patients match the PARADIGM-HF patients. Coverage is denied if their BNP [brain natriuretic peptide] level is too low.” Dr. Sweitzer added that in one instance she had to submit a second preauthorization to simply uptitrate the dosage of sacubitril/valsartan she wanted a patient to receive.
“Based on the data it seems like you could easily identify HFrEF patients who are good candidates for sacubitril/valsartan, but your hands are tied by payers because you can’t prescribe it until you’ve first tried something else, and even then you still need to deal with a lot of paperwork,” agreed Robert O. Bonow, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The paperwork burden is really cumbersome for physicians with busy practices; it impedes taking care of patients,” Dr. Bonow said in an interview.
Sales figures for sacubitril/valsartan that the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis, has reported since the agent received U.S. marketing approval a little over a year ago reflect these challenges in prescribing the compound to patients. During the first quarter of 2016, Novartis reported $17 million in worldwide sales of the agent, followed by $32 million in worldwide sales during the second quarter of 2016, through June 30. With a total of $49 million in sacubitril/valsartan sales during the first 6 months of 2016, it seems like Novartis may be challenged to meet its stated target of $200 million in total sales of the compound during 2016. In April, one commentator called the $17 million sales figure for first quarter 2016 “an astonishingly small amount for a drug that was widely expected to be a blockbuster.”
Dr. Packer has in the past been a consultant to Novartis and was one of the lead investigators for the PARADIGM-HF trial. He said that currently he has no financial relationship with Novartis but he does serve as a consultant to several other drug companies. Dr. Sweitzer has received research support from Novartis and was an investigator for PARADIGM-HF. Dr. Bonow has been a consultant to Gilead.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING
CardioMEMS shows real-world heart failure benefit
ORLANDO – Pulmonary artery pressure monitoring using an implanted device was even more effective for controlling pulmonary artery pressures in 2,000 real-world U.S. heart failure patients than it was in the pivotal trial that led to the device’s regulatory approval.
Data from the first 2,000 U.S. heart failure patients to receive the CardioMEMS pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring device and have at least 6 months of follow-up data since the device received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2014 showed that cumulative PA pressure reductions in these patients during the first 6 months of use averaged 434 mm Hg per patient when compared with their baseline PA pressure when they first received the device. This was nearly threefold better than the average 150–mm Hg cumulative reduction in PA pressure per patient during 6 months of use seen in the CHAMPION trial, Dr. William T. Abraham reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Although this analysis of data from the registry maintained for U.S. patients who receive the CardioMEMS device does not yet include information on how these patients fared clinically, and specifically how often they required rehospitalization for heart failure, the strikingly high level of PA pressure control seen in the first 2,000 U.S. patients bodes well for what the clinical findings will show once they are available.
“In our experience with PA pressure monitoring, there is almost a linear relationship between reduced PA pressures and reduced numbers of events” in the form of rehospitalizations for heart failure, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus. Once data on outcomes are analyzed for the registry patients, “I think they will be even better than they were in the trial,” he said in an interview.
The PA pressure data in these initial patients “are very important because they tell us that in general use, clinicians – many of whom are at community hospitals – are very capable of using the CardioMEMS data to control patient pressures, and in CHAMPION we showed that there is a relationship between controlled pressures and improved outcomes,” he said. The findings also help allay a key concern about the potential benefit from implanting a device to monitor PA pressure, which is that clinicians must respond to the information and tweak a patient’s diuretic and vasodilator treatments in order for pressure monitoring to have an effect on heart failure outcomes.
“These data clearly refute that concern,” Dr. Abraham said.
He expressed some surprise that PA pressure control with monitoring was so much more effective in real-world use than in the CHAMPION pivotal trial. “In the trial, it was a paradigm shift to manage heart failure patients based on their PA pressures and not according to their symptoms,” he said. With CardioMEMS pressure monitoring, clinicians are supposed to treat high PA pressure with dose adjustments even if the patient feels okay. The new data suggest that clinicians now using the device “have gotten the message that if you don’t do something with the data the patients won’t improve.”
The registry patients came from 47 states and 427 unique physicians who worked in a range of settings including large and small centers, and academic and nonacademic community centers. The patients averaged 70 years, 40% were women, a third had a left ventricular ejection fraction at or above 40%, and their average PA pressure at the time they had their device implanted was 34.9 mm Hg. This pressure was notably higher than the average 31.6 mm Hg pressure among patients enrolled in CHAMPION, a fact that also helps explain why the registry patients received a larger pressure-reduction benefit: They started from a higher level than the trial patients, and during follow-up, their achieved pressures were always compared back to their high baseline pressures.
The registry patients were also substantially older than the trial patients, who had averaged 62 years, and the registry included substantially more women and more patients with higher ejection fractions. Dr. Abraham did not report data on their New York Heart Association class at entry, but labeling for CardioMEMS specifies that patients should have class III heart failure as well as a recent heart failure hospitalization.
Dr. Abraham’s analysis also showed that the greatest degree of PA pressure control occurred in the patients who began device-based treatment with the highest PA pressures. Nearly half the 2,000 registry patients had an entry PA pressure at or above 35 mm Hg, and over a period of 6 months, they averaged a cumulative 876–mm Hg reduction in their PA pressure relative to their baseline level. The third of patients who began with a PA pressure of 25-34 mm Hg had an average 169–mm Hg cumulative pressure reduction over the 6 month period, and the 18% of patients who began with a PA pressure of less than 25 mm Hg actually had an average cumulative increase in the PA pressure of 163 mm Hg. Target PA pressures are usually in the normal range of 18-25 mm Hg.
The analyses also showed that the impact of PA pressure monitoring on pressure was roughly similar regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction patients had at baseline, and regardless of their sex.
The registry data were collected by St. Jude, the company that markets the CardioMEMS device. Dr. Abraham is a consultant to St. Jude and was lead investigator for the CHAMPION pivotal trial.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Pulmonary artery pressure monitoring using an implanted device was even more effective for controlling pulmonary artery pressures in 2,000 real-world U.S. heart failure patients than it was in the pivotal trial that led to the device’s regulatory approval.
Data from the first 2,000 U.S. heart failure patients to receive the CardioMEMS pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring device and have at least 6 months of follow-up data since the device received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2014 showed that cumulative PA pressure reductions in these patients during the first 6 months of use averaged 434 mm Hg per patient when compared with their baseline PA pressure when they first received the device. This was nearly threefold better than the average 150–mm Hg cumulative reduction in PA pressure per patient during 6 months of use seen in the CHAMPION trial, Dr. William T. Abraham reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Although this analysis of data from the registry maintained for U.S. patients who receive the CardioMEMS device does not yet include information on how these patients fared clinically, and specifically how often they required rehospitalization for heart failure, the strikingly high level of PA pressure control seen in the first 2,000 U.S. patients bodes well for what the clinical findings will show once they are available.
“In our experience with PA pressure monitoring, there is almost a linear relationship between reduced PA pressures and reduced numbers of events” in the form of rehospitalizations for heart failure, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus. Once data on outcomes are analyzed for the registry patients, “I think they will be even better than they were in the trial,” he said in an interview.
The PA pressure data in these initial patients “are very important because they tell us that in general use, clinicians – many of whom are at community hospitals – are very capable of using the CardioMEMS data to control patient pressures, and in CHAMPION we showed that there is a relationship between controlled pressures and improved outcomes,” he said. The findings also help allay a key concern about the potential benefit from implanting a device to monitor PA pressure, which is that clinicians must respond to the information and tweak a patient’s diuretic and vasodilator treatments in order for pressure monitoring to have an effect on heart failure outcomes.
“These data clearly refute that concern,” Dr. Abraham said.
He expressed some surprise that PA pressure control with monitoring was so much more effective in real-world use than in the CHAMPION pivotal trial. “In the trial, it was a paradigm shift to manage heart failure patients based on their PA pressures and not according to their symptoms,” he said. With CardioMEMS pressure monitoring, clinicians are supposed to treat high PA pressure with dose adjustments even if the patient feels okay. The new data suggest that clinicians now using the device “have gotten the message that if you don’t do something with the data the patients won’t improve.”
The registry patients came from 47 states and 427 unique physicians who worked in a range of settings including large and small centers, and academic and nonacademic community centers. The patients averaged 70 years, 40% were women, a third had a left ventricular ejection fraction at or above 40%, and their average PA pressure at the time they had their device implanted was 34.9 mm Hg. This pressure was notably higher than the average 31.6 mm Hg pressure among patients enrolled in CHAMPION, a fact that also helps explain why the registry patients received a larger pressure-reduction benefit: They started from a higher level than the trial patients, and during follow-up, their achieved pressures were always compared back to their high baseline pressures.
The registry patients were also substantially older than the trial patients, who had averaged 62 years, and the registry included substantially more women and more patients with higher ejection fractions. Dr. Abraham did not report data on their New York Heart Association class at entry, but labeling for CardioMEMS specifies that patients should have class III heart failure as well as a recent heart failure hospitalization.
Dr. Abraham’s analysis also showed that the greatest degree of PA pressure control occurred in the patients who began device-based treatment with the highest PA pressures. Nearly half the 2,000 registry patients had an entry PA pressure at or above 35 mm Hg, and over a period of 6 months, they averaged a cumulative 876–mm Hg reduction in their PA pressure relative to their baseline level. The third of patients who began with a PA pressure of 25-34 mm Hg had an average 169–mm Hg cumulative pressure reduction over the 6 month period, and the 18% of patients who began with a PA pressure of less than 25 mm Hg actually had an average cumulative increase in the PA pressure of 163 mm Hg. Target PA pressures are usually in the normal range of 18-25 mm Hg.
The analyses also showed that the impact of PA pressure monitoring on pressure was roughly similar regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction patients had at baseline, and regardless of their sex.
The registry data were collected by St. Jude, the company that markets the CardioMEMS device. Dr. Abraham is a consultant to St. Jude and was lead investigator for the CHAMPION pivotal trial.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Pulmonary artery pressure monitoring using an implanted device was even more effective for controlling pulmonary artery pressures in 2,000 real-world U.S. heart failure patients than it was in the pivotal trial that led to the device’s regulatory approval.
Data from the first 2,000 U.S. heart failure patients to receive the CardioMEMS pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring device and have at least 6 months of follow-up data since the device received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2014 showed that cumulative PA pressure reductions in these patients during the first 6 months of use averaged 434 mm Hg per patient when compared with their baseline PA pressure when they first received the device. This was nearly threefold better than the average 150–mm Hg cumulative reduction in PA pressure per patient during 6 months of use seen in the CHAMPION trial, Dr. William T. Abraham reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Although this analysis of data from the registry maintained for U.S. patients who receive the CardioMEMS device does not yet include information on how these patients fared clinically, and specifically how often they required rehospitalization for heart failure, the strikingly high level of PA pressure control seen in the first 2,000 U.S. patients bodes well for what the clinical findings will show once they are available.
“In our experience with PA pressure monitoring, there is almost a linear relationship between reduced PA pressures and reduced numbers of events” in the form of rehospitalizations for heart failure, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus. Once data on outcomes are analyzed for the registry patients, “I think they will be even better than they were in the trial,” he said in an interview.
The PA pressure data in these initial patients “are very important because they tell us that in general use, clinicians – many of whom are at community hospitals – are very capable of using the CardioMEMS data to control patient pressures, and in CHAMPION we showed that there is a relationship between controlled pressures and improved outcomes,” he said. The findings also help allay a key concern about the potential benefit from implanting a device to monitor PA pressure, which is that clinicians must respond to the information and tweak a patient’s diuretic and vasodilator treatments in order for pressure monitoring to have an effect on heart failure outcomes.
“These data clearly refute that concern,” Dr. Abraham said.
He expressed some surprise that PA pressure control with monitoring was so much more effective in real-world use than in the CHAMPION pivotal trial. “In the trial, it was a paradigm shift to manage heart failure patients based on their PA pressures and not according to their symptoms,” he said. With CardioMEMS pressure monitoring, clinicians are supposed to treat high PA pressure with dose adjustments even if the patient feels okay. The new data suggest that clinicians now using the device “have gotten the message that if you don’t do something with the data the patients won’t improve.”
The registry patients came from 47 states and 427 unique physicians who worked in a range of settings including large and small centers, and academic and nonacademic community centers. The patients averaged 70 years, 40% were women, a third had a left ventricular ejection fraction at or above 40%, and their average PA pressure at the time they had their device implanted was 34.9 mm Hg. This pressure was notably higher than the average 31.6 mm Hg pressure among patients enrolled in CHAMPION, a fact that also helps explain why the registry patients received a larger pressure-reduction benefit: They started from a higher level than the trial patients, and during follow-up, their achieved pressures were always compared back to their high baseline pressures.
The registry patients were also substantially older than the trial patients, who had averaged 62 years, and the registry included substantially more women and more patients with higher ejection fractions. Dr. Abraham did not report data on their New York Heart Association class at entry, but labeling for CardioMEMS specifies that patients should have class III heart failure as well as a recent heart failure hospitalization.
Dr. Abraham’s analysis also showed that the greatest degree of PA pressure control occurred in the patients who began device-based treatment with the highest PA pressures. Nearly half the 2,000 registry patients had an entry PA pressure at or above 35 mm Hg, and over a period of 6 months, they averaged a cumulative 876–mm Hg reduction in their PA pressure relative to their baseline level. The third of patients who began with a PA pressure of 25-34 mm Hg had an average 169–mm Hg cumulative pressure reduction over the 6 month period, and the 18% of patients who began with a PA pressure of less than 25 mm Hg actually had an average cumulative increase in the PA pressure of 163 mm Hg. Target PA pressures are usually in the normal range of 18-25 mm Hg.
The analyses also showed that the impact of PA pressure monitoring on pressure was roughly similar regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction patients had at baseline, and regardless of their sex.
The registry data were collected by St. Jude, the company that markets the CardioMEMS device. Dr. Abraham is a consultant to St. Jude and was lead investigator for the CHAMPION pivotal trial.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE HFSA ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING
Key clinical point: Registry data from the first 2,000 U.S. heart failure patients who received an implanted pulmonary artery pressure monitor showed a level of pressure control over a period of 6 months nearly triple that seen in the pivotal trial.
Major finding: Cumulative pulmonary artery pressure reductions averaged 434 mm Hg over a period of 6 months, compared with an average reduction of 150 mm Hg in the pivotal trial.
Data source: The first 2,000 U.S. patients who received a CardioMEMS device and were followed for at least 6 months.
Disclosures: The registry data were collected by St. Jude, the company that markets the CardioMEMS device. Dr. Abraham is a consultant to St. Jude and was lead investigator for the CHAMPION pivotal trial.
