Cardiology News

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

PHOENIX – Post hoc analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT trial comparing ticagrelor alone with ticagrelor plus aspirin in high-risk patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) shows both regimens were similarly effective in preventing repeat revascularization after 1 year.

In TWILIGHT, the main findings of which were previously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 7,119 high-risk PCI patients on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months were randomized to continuation of DAPT or to ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 months.

University of Oklahoma

The new post hoc analysis included 6,759 patients and shows the rates of clinically driven revascularization were similar between the two groups: 7.1% and 6.6% for the ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor-based DAPT groups, respectively (P = .363).

The findings were presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. 

Three key findings come from the post hoc analysis, Usman Baber, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization lab and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, who presented the findings, said in an interview.

“The first is that, over the 1-year follow-up of our trial, we found that a repeat revascularization event occurred in 6.7% of patients,” he said. “We found that a slight majority of these repeat revascularization events were due to events at the target lesion or target vessel; and we found that most of the repeat revascularization events actually occurred in patients without a concomitant acute coronary syndrome. In other words, these were essentially stable patients when they were getting their repeat revascularization.”

The second major finding was that these high-risk patients who had repeat revascularization were at three times greater risk for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), based on a multivariable adjusted model, Dr. Baber said.

“And then third is that ticagrelor on its own as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin was equally effective in preventing repeat revascularization events,” he said.
 

Repeat revascularization

The goal of the analysis was to focus on clinically driven repeat revascularization as an outcome, Dr. Baber said. The analysis also aimed to understand the association between repeat revascularization and subsequent risk.

Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR); target vessel revascularization (TVR); MACCE, including clinically driven revascularization; and net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of MACCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding.

The outcomes of all those endpoints, except for NACE, were similar, Dr. Baber said. “Overall, ticagrelor monotherapy, as expected, reduced rates of bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin,” he said. The rates of NACE were 12.2% versus 14.6%, respectively (P = .004). For BARC 2,3, or 5 bleeding, the rates were 3.4% versus 7.1% (P < .001).

The findings validated repeat revascularization as a meaningful endpoint, Dr. Baber said. “Certainly, we don’t elevate repeat revascularization as an endpoint to the same level as death or stroke, but certainly this analysis and some others prior to it highlight the fact that when these patients come back for repeat revascularization, even if they’re stable, they clearly are at elevated risk for future ischemic events,” he said.

One limitation of the analysis is that the data are from a clinical trial, “which renders the findings not as generalizable to the broader patients in a clinical practice,” he said. However, the TWILIGHT data are validated and adjusted for multiple risk factors.

“When patients come in and they have a repeat revascularization, should there be a consideration to placing them on more intensive antithrombotic therapy?” he asked. “Right now, if patients have a repeat revascularization event and they’re stable, guidelines and clinical practice usually calls for continuing clopidogrel, but again our study and others like it indicate these patients are at a higher thrombotic risk, so maybe there’s a rationale for at least a short course of a more potent antiplatelet agent in such patients.”

University of Washington

The post hoc findings confirm those of the primary TWILIGHT trial, Lorenzo Azzalini, MD, PhD, MSc, director of interventional cardiology research at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“It’s not surprising to find no difference between the two therapies with regard to unplanned revascularization,” he said. “It’s considered that only stent thrombosis can only actually be mitigated by the drugs being investigated in the trial; all the other ischemic endpoints reflect more chronic ischemia—TLR or known TVR—upon which ticagrelor and aspirin do not play any role.”

However, he added, “I still think this study provides useful information to the community in a period of intense scrutiny on the relative benefits and merits of PCI versus CABG [coronary artery bypass graft], and this study confirms that shortening DAPT to 3 months and then continuing with just ticagrelor does not bring any penalty in terms of ischemic events or repeat revascularization.”

TWILIGHT enrolled high-risk patients, but not “very-high-risk” patients, Dr. Azzalini noted. The enrollment criteria excluded patients on chronic anticoagulation, who had a prior stroke or liver sclerosis, or were on dialysis.

“Future trials should focus more on very-high-risk patients because these are the patients that we deal with on a daily basis in our clinical practice and we need data to inform our decisions,” he said. “I’m not sure I could use the science contained in this study and extrapolate them to patients on dialysis because these patients really have a high risk of restenosis on follow-up.”

Dr. Baber disclosed relationships with Amgen and Abbott. Dr. Azzalini had no relevant disclosures.

At the time that it was halted, a multicenter randomized trial was associating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with an intriguing signal of benefit for patients in cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction.

Stopped early because of the pandemic, the EURO SHOCK trial has data on only 35 patients, but all-cause mortality at 30 days was nearly 30% lower in the VA-ECMO arm than in the standard-therapy arm, reported Manel Sabate, MD, PhD, chief of the interventional cardiology unit, Clinic University Hospital, Barcelona.

When patients were followed out to 12 months, the numerical survival advantage appeared to persist.

Yet, because of the early trial termination, “there really are no definite conclusions to be drawn from these results,” acknowledged Dr. Sabate, who noted that less than 10% of the planned enrollment had been reached. In addition, the survival benefit in the VA-ECMO arm was achieved at the cost of a higher rate of complications.

Despite the small numbers, results from the halted trial were presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. They were also simultaneously published in EuroIntervention.

The interest is based on an important unmet need, said Dr. Sabate. Cardiogenic shock occurs in about 10% of acute MI patients. Of those that continue on to revascularization, the 30-day mortality can approach 50%.

Meanwhile, the potential of mechanical circulatory support to maintain perfusion during cardiogenic shock makes it one of the most attractive, if unproven, approaches for improving outcomes.
 

Major multicenter trial terminated

The EURO SHOCK trial had a planned enrollment of 428 patients when it was initiated; 15 centers in six European countries participated. Recruitment and the trial were brought to a halt by the COVID-19 pandemic.

When trial recruitment was stopped, 18 patients had been assigned to standard supportive care and 17 patients to VA-ECMO. The primary endpoint of the trial was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Mortality at 12 months along with bleeding complications, cerebrovascular events, and readmission for heart failure, were among secondary endpoints.

At 30 days, the mortality rate was 61.1% among patients randomized to standard care, versus 43.8% among patients randomized to VA ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-01.45; P = 0.22).

At 12 months, the numerical advantage of VA-ECMO persisted (81.5% vs. 51.8%) with a similar nonsignificant signal for potential benefit despite the small sample size (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.21-1.26; P = 0.14).

There were also numerically lower rates of cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, recurrent MI, and acute kidney injury among patients in the VA-ECMO group relative to those in the standard-care group, Dr. Sabate reported.

However, VA-ECMO was associated with more vascular complications (21.4% vs. 0%) and bleeding events (35.7% vs. 5.6%).

Furthermore, although quality of life data were limited, Dr. Sabate noted that about half of patients in the VA-ECMO group reported problems with mobility, self-care, or usual activities on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at 30 days. None of the patients in the standard-care group reported any such difficulties.

When standard care was compared with VA-ECMO, rates of readmission for heart failure over 12 months (8.0% vs. 6.9%) were not different.

To be enrolled in this study, patients being treated for MI had to be in cardiogenic shock for at least 30 minutes following primary PCI. The median time from onset of cardiogenic shock to VA-ECMO in the active treatment arm was 4.8 hours.
 

Patient enrollment was challenging

Even independent of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrolling patients proved to be difficult. The 35 patients enrolled represented about 10% of the 333 patients screened at the participating centers. Unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock from a cause other than MI, and recovery from cardiogenic shock after the PCI was performed were among reasons for the high rate of exclusions.

The difficulty of identifying and engaging appropriate candidates for VA-ECMO, along with a substantial crossover rate, should be among lessons for investigators planning the next trial, said Dr. Sabate, who pointed out that 5 of the 17 patients assigned to VA-ECMO were never treated due to complications or patient refusal.

“We cannot associate VA-ECMO with a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio on the basis of this study, but it sets the state for a larger randomized controlled trial to address this question,” Dr. Sabate said.

Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology and interventional cardiologist at the University of Catania (Italy), agreed.

“It was a good decision to publish these results,” he said. Noting that there were challenges in conducting the trial unrelated to COVID-19, Dr. Capodanno acknowledged the promise of mechanical ventilatory support for a relatively common and life-threatening complication.

“This study must be read for the lessons it will provide for future trials,” he said.

Dr. Sabate reported he has no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Capodanno reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi.

At the time that it was halted, a multicenter randomized trial was associating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with an intriguing signal of benefit for patients in cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction.

Stopped early because of the pandemic, the EURO SHOCK trial has data on only 35 patients, but all-cause mortality at 30 days was nearly 30% lower in the VA-ECMO arm than in the standard-therapy arm, reported Manel Sabate, MD, PhD, chief of the interventional cardiology unit, Clinic University Hospital, Barcelona.

When patients were followed out to 12 months, the numerical survival advantage appeared to persist.

Yet, because of the early trial termination, “there really are no definite conclusions to be drawn from these results,” acknowledged Dr. Sabate, who noted that less than 10% of the planned enrollment had been reached. In addition, the survival benefit in the VA-ECMO arm was achieved at the cost of a higher rate of complications.

Despite the small numbers, results from the halted trial were presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. They were also simultaneously published in EuroIntervention.

The interest is based on an important unmet need, said Dr. Sabate. Cardiogenic shock occurs in about 10% of acute MI patients. Of those that continue on to revascularization, the 30-day mortality can approach 50%.

Meanwhile, the potential of mechanical circulatory support to maintain perfusion during cardiogenic shock makes it one of the most attractive, if unproven, approaches for improving outcomes.
 

Major multicenter trial terminated

The EURO SHOCK trial had a planned enrollment of 428 patients when it was initiated; 15 centers in six European countries participated. Recruitment and the trial were brought to a halt by the COVID-19 pandemic.

When trial recruitment was stopped, 18 patients had been assigned to standard supportive care and 17 patients to VA-ECMO. The primary endpoint of the trial was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Mortality at 12 months along with bleeding complications, cerebrovascular events, and readmission for heart failure, were among secondary endpoints.

At 30 days, the mortality rate was 61.1% among patients randomized to standard care, versus 43.8% among patients randomized to VA ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-01.45; P = 0.22).

At 12 months, the numerical advantage of VA-ECMO persisted (81.5% vs. 51.8%) with a similar nonsignificant signal for potential benefit despite the small sample size (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.21-1.26; P = 0.14).

There were also numerically lower rates of cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, recurrent MI, and acute kidney injury among patients in the VA-ECMO group relative to those in the standard-care group, Dr. Sabate reported.

However, VA-ECMO was associated with more vascular complications (21.4% vs. 0%) and bleeding events (35.7% vs. 5.6%).

Furthermore, although quality of life data were limited, Dr. Sabate noted that about half of patients in the VA-ECMO group reported problems with mobility, self-care, or usual activities on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at 30 days. None of the patients in the standard-care group reported any such difficulties.

When standard care was compared with VA-ECMO, rates of readmission for heart failure over 12 months (8.0% vs. 6.9%) were not different.

To be enrolled in this study, patients being treated for MI had to be in cardiogenic shock for at least 30 minutes following primary PCI. The median time from onset of cardiogenic shock to VA-ECMO in the active treatment arm was 4.8 hours.
 

Patient enrollment was challenging

Even independent of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrolling patients proved to be difficult. The 35 patients enrolled represented about 10% of the 333 patients screened at the participating centers. Unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock from a cause other than MI, and recovery from cardiogenic shock after the PCI was performed were among reasons for the high rate of exclusions.

The difficulty of identifying and engaging appropriate candidates for VA-ECMO, along with a substantial crossover rate, should be among lessons for investigators planning the next trial, said Dr. Sabate, who pointed out that 5 of the 17 patients assigned to VA-ECMO were never treated due to complications or patient refusal.

“We cannot associate VA-ECMO with a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio on the basis of this study, but it sets the state for a larger randomized controlled trial to address this question,” Dr. Sabate said.

Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology and interventional cardiologist at the University of Catania (Italy), agreed.

“It was a good decision to publish these results,” he said. Noting that there were challenges in conducting the trial unrelated to COVID-19, Dr. Capodanno acknowledged the promise of mechanical ventilatory support for a relatively common and life-threatening complication.

“This study must be read for the lessons it will provide for future trials,” he said.

Dr. Sabate reported he has no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Capodanno reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi.

At the time that it was halted, a multicenter randomized trial was associating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with an intriguing signal of benefit for patients in cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction.

Stopped early because of the pandemic, the EURO SHOCK trial has data on only 35 patients, but all-cause mortality at 30 days was nearly 30% lower in the VA-ECMO arm than in the standard-therapy arm, reported Manel Sabate, MD, PhD, chief of the interventional cardiology unit, Clinic University Hospital, Barcelona.

When patients were followed out to 12 months, the numerical survival advantage appeared to persist.

Yet, because of the early trial termination, “there really are no definite conclusions to be drawn from these results,” acknowledged Dr. Sabate, who noted that less than 10% of the planned enrollment had been reached. In addition, the survival benefit in the VA-ECMO arm was achieved at the cost of a higher rate of complications.

Despite the small numbers, results from the halted trial were presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. They were also simultaneously published in EuroIntervention.

The interest is based on an important unmet need, said Dr. Sabate. Cardiogenic shock occurs in about 10% of acute MI patients. Of those that continue on to revascularization, the 30-day mortality can approach 50%.

Meanwhile, the potential of mechanical circulatory support to maintain perfusion during cardiogenic shock makes it one of the most attractive, if unproven, approaches for improving outcomes.
 

Major multicenter trial terminated

The EURO SHOCK trial had a planned enrollment of 428 patients when it was initiated; 15 centers in six European countries participated. Recruitment and the trial were brought to a halt by the COVID-19 pandemic.

When trial recruitment was stopped, 18 patients had been assigned to standard supportive care and 17 patients to VA-ECMO. The primary endpoint of the trial was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Mortality at 12 months along with bleeding complications, cerebrovascular events, and readmission for heart failure, were among secondary endpoints.

At 30 days, the mortality rate was 61.1% among patients randomized to standard care, versus 43.8% among patients randomized to VA ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-01.45; P = 0.22).

At 12 months, the numerical advantage of VA-ECMO persisted (81.5% vs. 51.8%) with a similar nonsignificant signal for potential benefit despite the small sample size (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.21-1.26; P = 0.14).

There were also numerically lower rates of cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, recurrent MI, and acute kidney injury among patients in the VA-ECMO group relative to those in the standard-care group, Dr. Sabate reported.

However, VA-ECMO was associated with more vascular complications (21.4% vs. 0%) and bleeding events (35.7% vs. 5.6%).

Furthermore, although quality of life data were limited, Dr. Sabate noted that about half of patients in the VA-ECMO group reported problems with mobility, self-care, or usual activities on the basis of the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at 30 days. None of the patients in the standard-care group reported any such difficulties.

When standard care was compared with VA-ECMO, rates of readmission for heart failure over 12 months (8.0% vs. 6.9%) were not different.

To be enrolled in this study, patients being treated for MI had to be in cardiogenic shock for at least 30 minutes following primary PCI. The median time from onset of cardiogenic shock to VA-ECMO in the active treatment arm was 4.8 hours.
 

Patient enrollment was challenging

Even independent of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrolling patients proved to be difficult. The 35 patients enrolled represented about 10% of the 333 patients screened at the participating centers. Unwitnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock from a cause other than MI, and recovery from cardiogenic shock after the PCI was performed were among reasons for the high rate of exclusions.

The difficulty of identifying and engaging appropriate candidates for VA-ECMO, along with a substantial crossover rate, should be among lessons for investigators planning the next trial, said Dr. Sabate, who pointed out that 5 of the 17 patients assigned to VA-ECMO were never treated due to complications or patient refusal.

“We cannot associate VA-ECMO with a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio on the basis of this study, but it sets the state for a larger randomized controlled trial to address this question,” Dr. Sabate said.

Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology and interventional cardiologist at the University of Catania (Italy), agreed.

“It was a good decision to publish these results,” he said. Noting that there were challenges in conducting the trial unrelated to COVID-19, Dr. Capodanno acknowledged the promise of mechanical ventilatory support for a relatively common and life-threatening complication.

“This study must be read for the lessons it will provide for future trials,” he said.

Dr. Sabate reported he has no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Capodanno reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi.

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

Amid growing criticism of health insurers’ onerous prior authorization practices, lawmakers in 30 states have introduced bills this year that aim to rein in insurer gatekeeping and improve patient care.

“This is something that goes on in every doctor’s office every day; the frustrations, the delays, and the use of office staff time are just unbelievable,” said Steven Orland, MD, a board-certified urologist and president of the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The bills, which cover private health plans and insurers that states regulate, may provide some relief for physicians as federal efforts to streamline prior authorization for some Medicare patients have lagged.

Last year, Congress failed to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, despite 326 co-sponsors. The bill would have compelled insurers covering Medicare Advantage enrollees to speed up prior authorizations, make the process more transparent, and remove obstacles such as requiring fax machine submissions.

Last month, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a final rule that will improve some aspects of prior authorizations in Medicare Advantage insurance plans and ensure that enrollees have the same access to necessary care as traditional Medicare enrollees.

The insurance industry has long defended prior authorization requirements and opposed legislation that would limit them.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association said in a 2019 letter to a congressional committee when the federal legislation was first introduced, “Prior authorizations enforce best practices and guidelines for care management and help physicians identify and avoid care techniques that would harm patient outcomes, such as designating prescriptions that could feed into an opioid addiction.” AHIP didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

But some major insurers now appear willing to compromise and voluntarily reduce the volume of prior authorizations they require. Days before the federal final rule was released, three major insurers – United HealthCare, Cigna, and Aetna CVS Health – announced they plan to drop some prior authorization requirements and automate processes.

United HealthCare said it will eliminate almost 20% of its prior authorizations for some nonurgent surgeries and procedures starting this summer. It also will create a national Gold Card program in 2024 for physicians who meet its eligibility requirements, which would eliminate prior authorization requirements for most procedures. Both initiatives will apply to commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses, said the insurer in a statement.

However, United HealthCare also announced that in June it will start requiring prior authorization for diagnostic (not screening) gastrointestinal endoscopies for its nearly 27 million privately insured patients, citing data it says shows potentially harmful overuse of scopes. Physician groups have publicly criticized the move, saying it could delay lifesaving treatment, and have asked the insurer to reconsider.

Cigna and Aetna also have moved to pare back prior authorization processes. Scott Josephs, national medical officer for Cigna, told Healthcare Dive that Cigna has removed prior authorization reviews from nearly 500 services since 2020.

An Aetna spokesperson told Healthcare Dive that the CVS-owned payer has implemented a gold card program and rolled back prior authorization requirements on cataract surgeries, video EEGs, and home infusion for some drugs, according to Healthcare Dive.

Cigna has faced increased scrutiny from some state regulators since a ProPublica/The Capitol Forum article revealed in March that its doctors were denying claims without opening patients’ files, contrary to what insurance laws and regulations require in many states.

Over a period of 2 months last year, Cigna doctors denied over 300,000 requests for payments using this method, spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case, the investigation found. In a written response, Cigna said the reporting by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum was “biased and incomplete.”
 

States aim to reduce prior authorization volume

The American Medical Association said it has been tracking nearly 90 prior authorization reform bills in 30 states. More than a dozen bills are still being considered in this legislative session, including in Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

“The groundswell of activity in the states reflects how big a problem this is,” said an AMA legislative expert. “The issue used to be ‘how can we automate and streamline processes’; now the issue is focused on reducing the volume of prior authorizations and the harm that can cause patients.”

The state bills use different strategies to reduce excessive prior authorization requirements. Maryland’s proposed bill, for example, would require just one prior authorization to stay on a prescription drug, if the insurer has previously approved the drug and the patient continues to successfully be treated by the drug.

Washington, D.C. and New Jersey have introduced comprehensive reform bills that include a “grace period” of 60 days, to ensure continuity of care when a patient switches health plans. They also would eliminate repeat authorizations for chronic and long-term conditions, set explicit timelines for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests and appeals, and require that practicing physicians review denials that are appealed.

Many state bills also would require insurers to be more transparent by posting information on their websites about which services and drugs require prior authorization and what their approval rates are for them, said AMA’s legislative expert.

“There’s a black hole of information that insurers have access to. We would really like to know how many prior authorization requests are denied, the time it takes to deny them, and the reasons for denial,” said Josh Bengal, JD, the director of government relations for the Medical Society of New Jersey.

The legislation in New Jersey and other states faces stiff opposition from the insurance lobby, especially state associations of health plans affiliated with AHIP. The California Association of Health Plans, for example, opposes a “gold card” bill (SB 598), introduced in February, that would allow a select group of high-performing doctors to skip prior authorizations for 1 year.

The CAHP states, “Californians deserve safe, high quality, high-value health care. Yet SB 598 will derail the progress we have made in our health care system by lowering the value and safety that Californians should expect from their health care providers,” according to a fact sheet.

The fact-sheet defines “low-value care” as medical services for which there is little to no benefit and poses potential physical or financial harm to patients, such as unnecessary CT scans or MRIs for uncomplicated conditions.

California is one of about a dozen states that have introduced gold card legislation this year. If enacted, they would join five states with gold card laws: West Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Michigan, and Louisiana.
 

How do gold cards work?

Physicians who achieve a high approval rate of prior authorizations from insurers for 1 year are eligible to be exempted from obtaining prior authorizations the following year.

The approval rate is at least 90% for a certain number of eligible health services, but the number of prior authorizations required to qualify can range from 5 to 30, depending on the state law.

Gold card legislation typically also gives the treating physician the right to have an appeal of a prior authorization denial by a physician peer of the same or similar specialty.

California’s bill would also apply to all covered health services, which is broader than what United HealthCare has proposed for its gold card exemption. The bill would also require a plan or insurer to annually monitor rates of prior authorization approval, modification, appeal, and denial, and to discontinue services, items, and supplies that are approved 95% of the time.

“These are important reforms that will help ensure that patients can receive the care they need, when they need it,” said CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD.

However, it’s not clear how many physicians will meet “gold card” status based on Texas’ recent experience with its own “gold card” law.

The Texas Department of Insurance estimated that only 3.3% of licensed physicians in the state have met “gold card” status since the bill became law in 2021, said Zeke Silva, MD, an interventional radiologist who serves on the Council of Legislation for the Texas Medical Association.

He noted that the legislation has had a limited effect for several reasons. Commercial health plans only make up only about 20% of all health plans in Texas. Also, the final regulations didn’t go into effect until last May and physicians are evaluated by health plans for “gold card” status every 6 months, said Dr. Silva.

In addition, physicians must have at least five prior authorizations approved for the same health service, which the law left up to the health plans to define, said Dr. Silva.

Now, the Texas Medical Association is lobbying for legislative improvements. “We want to reduce the number of eligible services that health plans require for prior authorizations and have more oversight of prior authorization denials by the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Medical Board,” said Dr. Silva.

He’s optimistic that if the bill becomes law, the number of physicians eligible for gold cards may increase.

Meanwhile, the AMA’s legislative expert, who declined to be identified because of organization policy, acknowledged the possibility that some prior authorization bills will die in state legislatures this year.

“We remain hopeful, but it’s an uphill battle. The state medical associations face a lot of opposition from health plans who don’t want to see these reforms become law.”

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

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

Cardiology, well into the age of leadless pacemakers, could be headed for an age of leadless pacemaker systems in which various pacing functions are achieved by multiple implants that “talk” to each other.

Even now, a leadless two-part pacemaker system has shown it can safely achieve atrioventricular (AV) synchrony in patients with standard indications for a dual-chamber device, at least over the short term, suggests a prospective observational study. Currently available leadless pacemakers can stimulate only the right ventricle.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate in 300 patients who received an investigational dual-chamber leadless system, the AVEIR DR i2i (Abbott).

Its two separately implanted miniature pulse generators achieve AV synchrony via “beat-to-beat wireless bidirectional communication,” Daniel J. Cantillon, MD, said when presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Societyin New Orleans. The system went on to best its predefined safety and performance targets, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97.3% of patients for at least 3 months.  

The system seemed to work well regardless of the patient’s body orientation. “Sitting, supine, left lateral, right lateral, standing, normal walk, fast walk – we demonstrated robust AV synchrony in all of those positions and with movement,” said Dr. Cantillon, of the Cleveland Clinic.

Should the device be approved, it could “expand the use case for leadless cardiac pacing” to include atrial-only, ventricular-only, fully functional dual-chamber pacing scenarios.”

Dr. Cantillon is senior author on the study’s online publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his HRS presentation, with first author Reinoud E. Knops, MD, PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“The electrical performance of both the atrial and ventricular leadless pacemakers appears to be similar to that of transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers,” the published report states.
 

More data needed

The study is important and has “significant implications for our pacing field,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, said in an interview. It suggests that “dual-chamber pacing can be achieved with leadless technology” and “with a very high degree” of AV synchrony.

“Obviously, more data as the technology moves into clinical practice will be critical,” said Dr. Piccini, who directs cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “We will also need to understand which patients are best served by leadless technology and which will be better served with traditional transvenous devices.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system consists of two leadless pulse generators for percutaneous implantation in the right atrium and right ventricle, respectively. They link like components of a wireless network to coordinate their separate sensing and rate-adaptive, AV-synchronous pacing functions.

The right ventricular implant “is physically identical to a commercially available single-chamber leadless pacemaker” from Abbott, the published report states.

Leadless pacemaker systems inherently avoid the two main sources of transvenous devices’ major complication – infection – by not requiring such leads or surgery for creating a pulse-generator subcutaneous pocket.

The first such systems consisted of one implant that could provide single-chamber ventricular pacing but not atrial pacing or AV synchronous pacing. The transcatheter single-chamber leadless Micra (Medtronic) for example, was approved in the United States in April 2016 for ventricular-only pacing.

A successor, the Micra AV, approved in 2020, was designed to simulate AV-synchronous pacing by stimulating the ventricle in sequence with mechanically sensed atrial contractions, as described by Dr. Cantillon and associates. But it could not directly pace the atrium, “rendering it inappropriate for patients with sinus-node dysfunction.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system doesn’t have those limitations. It was, however, associated with 35 device- or procedure-related complications in the study, of which the most common was procedural arrhythmia, “namely atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Cantillon said.  

Atrial fibrillation can develop during implantation of pacemakers with transvenous leads but is generally terminated without being considered an important event. Yet the study classified it as a serious complication, inflating the complication rate, because “the patients had to be restored to sinus rhythm so we could assess the AV synchrony and also the atrial electrical performance,” he said.

Some of the devices dislodged from their implantation site within a month of the procedure, but “all of those patients were successfully managed percutaneously,” said Dr. Cantillon.

“The 1.7% dislodgement rate is something that we will need to keep an eye on, as embolization of devices is always a significant concern,” Dr. Piccini said. Still, the observed total complication rate “was certainly in line” with rates associated with conventional pacemaker implantation.
 

Reliable AV synchrony

Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., lauded what seems to be the system’s “incredibly reliable AV synchrony in different conditions, albeit in a very controlled environment.”

Of interest will be whether its performance, including maintenance of AV synchrony, holds up in “a more long-term evaluation in the outpatient setting,” said Dr. Kusumoto, speaking as the invited discussant for Dr. Cantillon’s presentation.

Also missing or in short supply from the study, he observed, are insights about long-term efficacy and complications, battery longevity, effectiveness of its rate-responsive capability, and any effect on clinical outcomes.
 

Local body network

Of the study’s 300 patients (mean age 69 years; 38% female) at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States, 63.3% had sinus-node dysfunction and 33.3% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication; 298 were successfully implanted with both devices. 

About 45% had a history of supraventricular arrhythmia, 4.3% had prior ventricular arrhythmia, and 20% had a history of arrhythmia ablation.

By 3 months, the group reported, the primary safety endpoint (freedom from device- or procedure-related serious adverse events) occurred in 90.3%, compared with the performance goal of 78% (P < .001).

The first of two primary performance endpoints (adequate atrial capture threshold and sensing amplitude by predefined criteria) was met in 90.2%, surpassing the 82.5% performance goal (P < .001).

The second primary performance goal (at least 70% AV synchrony with the patient sitting) was seen in 97.3% against the performance goal of 83% (P < .001).

What shouldn’t be “glossed over” from the study, Dr. Kusumoto offered, is that it’s possible to achieve a wireless connection “between two devices that are actually intracardiac.” That raises the prospect of a “local body network” that could be “expanded even more dramatically with other types of devices. I mean, think of the paradigm shift.”

The AVEIR DR i2i trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Cantillon discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Shockwave Medical, as well as holding royalty rights with AirStrip. Dr. Piccini has disclosed relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and other drug and medical device companies. Dr. Kusumoto reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiology, well into the age of leadless pacemakers, could be headed for an age of leadless pacemaker systems in which various pacing functions are achieved by multiple implants that “talk” to each other.

Even now, a leadless two-part pacemaker system has shown it can safely achieve atrioventricular (AV) synchrony in patients with standard indications for a dual-chamber device, at least over the short term, suggests a prospective observational study. Currently available leadless pacemakers can stimulate only the right ventricle.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate in 300 patients who received an investigational dual-chamber leadless system, the AVEIR DR i2i (Abbott).

Its two separately implanted miniature pulse generators achieve AV synchrony via “beat-to-beat wireless bidirectional communication,” Daniel J. Cantillon, MD, said when presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Societyin New Orleans. The system went on to best its predefined safety and performance targets, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97.3% of patients for at least 3 months.  

The system seemed to work well regardless of the patient’s body orientation. “Sitting, supine, left lateral, right lateral, standing, normal walk, fast walk – we demonstrated robust AV synchrony in all of those positions and with movement,” said Dr. Cantillon, of the Cleveland Clinic.

Should the device be approved, it could “expand the use case for leadless cardiac pacing” to include atrial-only, ventricular-only, fully functional dual-chamber pacing scenarios.”

Dr. Cantillon is senior author on the study’s online publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his HRS presentation, with first author Reinoud E. Knops, MD, PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“The electrical performance of both the atrial and ventricular leadless pacemakers appears to be similar to that of transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers,” the published report states.
 

More data needed

The study is important and has “significant implications for our pacing field,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, said in an interview. It suggests that “dual-chamber pacing can be achieved with leadless technology” and “with a very high degree” of AV synchrony.

“Obviously, more data as the technology moves into clinical practice will be critical,” said Dr. Piccini, who directs cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “We will also need to understand which patients are best served by leadless technology and which will be better served with traditional transvenous devices.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system consists of two leadless pulse generators for percutaneous implantation in the right atrium and right ventricle, respectively. They link like components of a wireless network to coordinate their separate sensing and rate-adaptive, AV-synchronous pacing functions.

The right ventricular implant “is physically identical to a commercially available single-chamber leadless pacemaker” from Abbott, the published report states.

Leadless pacemaker systems inherently avoid the two main sources of transvenous devices’ major complication – infection – by not requiring such leads or surgery for creating a pulse-generator subcutaneous pocket.

The first such systems consisted of one implant that could provide single-chamber ventricular pacing but not atrial pacing or AV synchronous pacing. The transcatheter single-chamber leadless Micra (Medtronic) for example, was approved in the United States in April 2016 for ventricular-only pacing.

A successor, the Micra AV, approved in 2020, was designed to simulate AV-synchronous pacing by stimulating the ventricle in sequence with mechanically sensed atrial contractions, as described by Dr. Cantillon and associates. But it could not directly pace the atrium, “rendering it inappropriate for patients with sinus-node dysfunction.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system doesn’t have those limitations. It was, however, associated with 35 device- or procedure-related complications in the study, of which the most common was procedural arrhythmia, “namely atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Cantillon said.  

Atrial fibrillation can develop during implantation of pacemakers with transvenous leads but is generally terminated without being considered an important event. Yet the study classified it as a serious complication, inflating the complication rate, because “the patients had to be restored to sinus rhythm so we could assess the AV synchrony and also the atrial electrical performance,” he said.

Some of the devices dislodged from their implantation site within a month of the procedure, but “all of those patients were successfully managed percutaneously,” said Dr. Cantillon.

“The 1.7% dislodgement rate is something that we will need to keep an eye on, as embolization of devices is always a significant concern,” Dr. Piccini said. Still, the observed total complication rate “was certainly in line” with rates associated with conventional pacemaker implantation.
 

Reliable AV synchrony

Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., lauded what seems to be the system’s “incredibly reliable AV synchrony in different conditions, albeit in a very controlled environment.”

Of interest will be whether its performance, including maintenance of AV synchrony, holds up in “a more long-term evaluation in the outpatient setting,” said Dr. Kusumoto, speaking as the invited discussant for Dr. Cantillon’s presentation.

Also missing or in short supply from the study, he observed, are insights about long-term efficacy and complications, battery longevity, effectiveness of its rate-responsive capability, and any effect on clinical outcomes.
 

Local body network

Of the study’s 300 patients (mean age 69 years; 38% female) at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States, 63.3% had sinus-node dysfunction and 33.3% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication; 298 were successfully implanted with both devices. 

About 45% had a history of supraventricular arrhythmia, 4.3% had prior ventricular arrhythmia, and 20% had a history of arrhythmia ablation.

By 3 months, the group reported, the primary safety endpoint (freedom from device- or procedure-related serious adverse events) occurred in 90.3%, compared with the performance goal of 78% (P < .001).

The first of two primary performance endpoints (adequate atrial capture threshold and sensing amplitude by predefined criteria) was met in 90.2%, surpassing the 82.5% performance goal (P < .001).

The second primary performance goal (at least 70% AV synchrony with the patient sitting) was seen in 97.3% against the performance goal of 83% (P < .001).

What shouldn’t be “glossed over” from the study, Dr. Kusumoto offered, is that it’s possible to achieve a wireless connection “between two devices that are actually intracardiac.” That raises the prospect of a “local body network” that could be “expanded even more dramatically with other types of devices. I mean, think of the paradigm shift.”

The AVEIR DR i2i trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Cantillon discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Shockwave Medical, as well as holding royalty rights with AirStrip. Dr. Piccini has disclosed relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and other drug and medical device companies. Dr. Kusumoto reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiology, well into the age of leadless pacemakers, could be headed for an age of leadless pacemaker systems in which various pacing functions are achieved by multiple implants that “talk” to each other.

Even now, a leadless two-part pacemaker system has shown it can safely achieve atrioventricular (AV) synchrony in patients with standard indications for a dual-chamber device, at least over the short term, suggests a prospective observational study. Currently available leadless pacemakers can stimulate only the right ventricle.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate in 300 patients who received an investigational dual-chamber leadless system, the AVEIR DR i2i (Abbott).

Its two separately implanted miniature pulse generators achieve AV synchrony via “beat-to-beat wireless bidirectional communication,” Daniel J. Cantillon, MD, said when presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Societyin New Orleans. The system went on to best its predefined safety and performance targets, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97.3% of patients for at least 3 months.  

The system seemed to work well regardless of the patient’s body orientation. “Sitting, supine, left lateral, right lateral, standing, normal walk, fast walk – we demonstrated robust AV synchrony in all of those positions and with movement,” said Dr. Cantillon, of the Cleveland Clinic.

Should the device be approved, it could “expand the use case for leadless cardiac pacing” to include atrial-only, ventricular-only, fully functional dual-chamber pacing scenarios.”

Dr. Cantillon is senior author on the study’s online publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his HRS presentation, with first author Reinoud E. Knops, MD, PhD, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

“The electrical performance of both the atrial and ventricular leadless pacemakers appears to be similar to that of transvenous dual-chamber pacemakers,” the published report states.
 

More data needed

The study is important and has “significant implications for our pacing field,” Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, said in an interview. It suggests that “dual-chamber pacing can be achieved with leadless technology” and “with a very high degree” of AV synchrony.

“Obviously, more data as the technology moves into clinical practice will be critical,” said Dr. Piccini, who directs cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “We will also need to understand which patients are best served by leadless technology and which will be better served with traditional transvenous devices.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system consists of two leadless pulse generators for percutaneous implantation in the right atrium and right ventricle, respectively. They link like components of a wireless network to coordinate their separate sensing and rate-adaptive, AV-synchronous pacing functions.

The right ventricular implant “is physically identical to a commercially available single-chamber leadless pacemaker” from Abbott, the published report states.

Leadless pacemaker systems inherently avoid the two main sources of transvenous devices’ major complication – infection – by not requiring such leads or surgery for creating a pulse-generator subcutaneous pocket.

The first such systems consisted of one implant that could provide single-chamber ventricular pacing but not atrial pacing or AV synchronous pacing. The transcatheter single-chamber leadless Micra (Medtronic) for example, was approved in the United States in April 2016 for ventricular-only pacing.

A successor, the Micra AV, approved in 2020, was designed to simulate AV-synchronous pacing by stimulating the ventricle in sequence with mechanically sensed atrial contractions, as described by Dr. Cantillon and associates. But it could not directly pace the atrium, “rendering it inappropriate for patients with sinus-node dysfunction.”

The AVEIR DR i2i system doesn’t have those limitations. It was, however, associated with 35 device- or procedure-related complications in the study, of which the most common was procedural arrhythmia, “namely atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Cantillon said.  

Atrial fibrillation can develop during implantation of pacemakers with transvenous leads but is generally terminated without being considered an important event. Yet the study classified it as a serious complication, inflating the complication rate, because “the patients had to be restored to sinus rhythm so we could assess the AV synchrony and also the atrial electrical performance,” he said.

Some of the devices dislodged from their implantation site within a month of the procedure, but “all of those patients were successfully managed percutaneously,” said Dr. Cantillon.

“The 1.7% dislodgement rate is something that we will need to keep an eye on, as embolization of devices is always a significant concern,” Dr. Piccini said. Still, the observed total complication rate “was certainly in line” with rates associated with conventional pacemaker implantation.
 

Reliable AV synchrony

Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., lauded what seems to be the system’s “incredibly reliable AV synchrony in different conditions, albeit in a very controlled environment.”

Of interest will be whether its performance, including maintenance of AV synchrony, holds up in “a more long-term evaluation in the outpatient setting,” said Dr. Kusumoto, speaking as the invited discussant for Dr. Cantillon’s presentation.

Also missing or in short supply from the study, he observed, are insights about long-term efficacy and complications, battery longevity, effectiveness of its rate-responsive capability, and any effect on clinical outcomes.
 

Local body network

Of the study’s 300 patients (mean age 69 years; 38% female) at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States, 63.3% had sinus-node dysfunction and 33.3% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication; 298 were successfully implanted with both devices. 

About 45% had a history of supraventricular arrhythmia, 4.3% had prior ventricular arrhythmia, and 20% had a history of arrhythmia ablation.

By 3 months, the group reported, the primary safety endpoint (freedom from device- or procedure-related serious adverse events) occurred in 90.3%, compared with the performance goal of 78% (P < .001).

The first of two primary performance endpoints (adequate atrial capture threshold and sensing amplitude by predefined criteria) was met in 90.2%, surpassing the 82.5% performance goal (P < .001).

The second primary performance goal (at least 70% AV synchrony with the patient sitting) was seen in 97.3% against the performance goal of 83% (P < .001).

What shouldn’t be “glossed over” from the study, Dr. Kusumoto offered, is that it’s possible to achieve a wireless connection “between two devices that are actually intracardiac.” That raises the prospect of a “local body network” that could be “expanded even more dramatically with other types of devices. I mean, think of the paradigm shift.”

The AVEIR DR i2i trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Cantillon discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, and Shockwave Medical, as well as holding royalty rights with AirStrip. Dr. Piccini has disclosed relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and other drug and medical device companies. Dr. Kusumoto reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.


 

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.


 

A real-world study of more than 12,000 cases over 7 years has validated the predictive ability of the proposed guidelines for stratifying thrombotic risks at 1 year for patients with non–ST-elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

In research presented at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions, George Dangas, MD, PhD, current SCAI president and professor of cardiology and vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported that the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria appropriately predicted risk in 12,538 patients treated from 2012 to 2019.

Icahn School of Medicine

Despite these proposed guidelines put forward by the ESC in 2020, no consensus exists on criteria for ischemic or thrombotic risk in NSTE-ACS patients, Dr. Dangas noted.

The new study shows that the 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk was four times greater in patients classified as medium risk (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-7.52) and six times greater in high-risk patients (HR, 6.16; 95% CI, 3.52-10.8), compared with the low-risk group, mostly because of higher rates of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, Dr. Dangas said in an interview.

“Indeed, we found some good correlation between the three risk categories and gradation of risk that validates essentially, but with the statistical testing that we need, that this classification is meaningful if not perfect,” Dr. Dangas said. “In the future we may perform calibrations to enhance its performance.”

The study used data on consecutive patients from the Angioplasty and Stent Procedures Database of Mount Sinai, grouping them into low, medium, and high thrombotic risk based on the proposed ESC guidelines for the management of NSTE-ACS.

The guidelines included a subset of criteria to identify patients with increased thrombotic risk who may benefit from extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

This study aimed to evaluate the value of the criteria to identify patients at higher risk of ischemic events. “That’s why we went to our database to see how this might work,” Dr. Dangas said.

The researchers also found that high-risk patients had about a 40% greater risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84). Bleeding risks were similar between the low- and moderate-risk groups.

The risk categories reflected the rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke: 5.4%, 4.1%, and 1.6% in the high-, moderate-, and low-risks groups, respectively (P < .001).

“This identification of ischemic risks worked very well for all-cause mortality,” Dr. Dangas said. “I feel this is a strength because mortality is a leader of outcomes. And of course, we’ve had some associations with all events like mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, which are interesting and valid, but I think a study result that indicates the mortality itself is known to be unidirectional and a very good correlation makes the result more robust.”
 

Critical role

Risk prediction models such as the proposed ESC guidelines will play a critical role as individualized medicine continues to evolve, Somjot Brar, MD, MPH, director of the regional department of cardiac catheterization at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, and associate clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

UCLA

“This study highlights again the importance of the value for predictive and precision medicine,” Dr. Brar said. “Everything is moving in this direction where we make decisions that are more appropriate for a given patient as opposed to a population of patients.”

Study strengths are the large sample size in a real-world setting and thorough 1-year follow-up, Dr. Brar said.

A limitation is the three risk categories the guidelines proposed. “These are still pretty big boxes,” he said. “The low-, moderate- and high-risk categorization is still very, very broad and can be very vague.”

The relatively low percentage of low-risk patients – 12% versus 56% and 32% for the moderate- and high-risk groups – in this data set may also skew results, Dr. Brar said.

“As we move toward predictive analytics and medicine, we want to make these boxes smaller and smaller and smaller to be able to better understand which treatments should be administered to which patients to maximize the benefit against the risk,” he said. That would be a focus for future analyses, Dr. Brar said.

Dr. Dangas and Dr. Brar have no relevant financial disclosures.