Acute Coronary Syndromes

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

After a myocardial infarction, implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are sensitive for detecting serious arrhythmias in patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction but only moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), according to results of the randomized SMART-MI trial.

wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When remote monitoring with the ICM was compared with conventional follow-up in this group of patients, serious arrhythmic events were detected at a nearly sixfold greater rate, reported Axel Bauer, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study further showed that these events were closely associated with subsequent major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

“SMART-MI is the first study to test an implantable device in high-risk MI patients with a LVEF greater than 35%,” reported Dr. Bauer, a cardiologist and director of the internal medicine clinic, University of Innsbruck (Austria). It showed that the types and frequency of arrhythmias were “comparable to those of post-MI patients with reduced LVEF.”

The ability to assess risk is potentially significant because “the majority of cardiovascular complications, including sudden death, occur in patients with only moderately reduced LVEF,” explained Dr. Bauer.

Despite the greater risk, “there are no preventive strategies so far” currently available for this group, he said.

The SMART-MI study confirms the need for treatments, confirms a method for monitoring risk, and might provide the basis for trials designed to test treatments to modify this risk, he added.
 

ECG used to define autonomic dysfunction

In the SMART MI protocol, 1,305 survivors of MI with LVEF of 36%-50% at 33 participating centers in Austria and Germany were evaluated with a 20-minute high resolution electrocardiogram. They were enrolled and randomized if they demonstrated cardiac autonomic dysfunction on at least two validated ECG biomarkers.

The 400 participants were randomized to implantation of a ICM, which transmitted daily reports to a ICM core laboratory, or to conventional follow-up.

After a median follow-up of 21 months, serious events were detected in 60 of the 201 patients in the ICM group and 12 of the 199 patients in the control group (29% vs. 6%). Serious adverse events were defined as those that would typically warrant therapy, such as prolonged atrial fibrillation (at least 6 minutes) high-degree atrioventricular block, and sustained ventricular tachycardia.

The difference in the detection rate, which was the primary endpoint, was highly significant (P < .0001), but the study was also able to confirm that these events predicted MACCE, a secondary study endpoint. In those with a serious arrhythmia, the hazard ratio for subsequent MACCE was approximately sevenfold greater relative to those without a serious arrhythmia. This was true of those in the ICM group (HR, 6.8; P < .001) and controls (HR 7.3; P < .001).

Arrhythmias warn of impending complications

“The data show that the prognostic impact of detecting a serious arrhythmia does not depend on the mode of detection,” Dr. Bauer reported. The data also confirm that “subclinical serious arrhythmia events are a warning signal for an impending complication.”

Although more interventions – including pacemakers, catheter ablations, and oral anticoagulants – were offered to patients in the experimental arm, “the study was not powered to show differences in outcomes,” and, in fact, no significant differences were observed, according to Dr. Bauer. However, the evidence that ICM is effective for detecting arrhythmias does provide a structure on which to build clinical trials.

“We now need the trials to see if ICM can change practice and improve outcomes,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, a staff cardiologist at the Hospital Santa Cruz, Lisbon. He acknowledged that this study proves that ICM can detect serious arrhythmias in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction, but “we need to develop and test treatment paths.”

Dr. Aguiar considers SMART-MI an important study that “goes to the heart” of a common clinical dilemma.

“In clinical practice, we see patients with LVEF that is not that suppressed and so do not have a class I indication for ICM, but there are often features that might have you concerned and make you think it would be great if the LVEF was 35% or lower [to justify intervention],” Dr. Aguiar said.
 

Data provide insight on unaddressed risk group

SMART-MI confirms earlier evidence that post-MI patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction are at high risk. Currently, this relative increase in risk goes “unaddressed,” according to Dr. Bauer. Although he contended that the risk itself “could be an indication for ICM in a high-risk patient group without classically defined left ventricular dysfunction,” he agreed that the ultimate value of this trial might be that it “opens a window” for a rationale to test preventive strategies.

An invited ESC discussant, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, praised the study for drawing attention to the risk of events in a subset of post-MI patients with LVEF of 35% or greater. However, he suggested that criteria other than those based on ECG might be more sensitive for selecting patients who might benefit from intervention.

“We do not know whether additional methods of establishing risk, such as imaging, might be valuable,” said Dr. Hindricks, chief of the department of arrhythmology in the Heart Institute of the University of Leipzig (Germany). He believes work in this area is needed to ensure appropriate entry criteria for interventional trials designed to modify risk in post-MI patients who do not meet the traditional definition of reduced ejection fraction.

Dr. Bauer reports financial relationships with Medtronic, which sponsored this study, as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Novartis. Dr. Aguiar reports no relevant financial conflicts.

After a myocardial infarction, implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are sensitive for detecting serious arrhythmias in patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction but only moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), according to results of the randomized SMART-MI trial.

wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When remote monitoring with the ICM was compared with conventional follow-up in this group of patients, serious arrhythmic events were detected at a nearly sixfold greater rate, reported Axel Bauer, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study further showed that these events were closely associated with subsequent major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

“SMART-MI is the first study to test an implantable device in high-risk MI patients with a LVEF greater than 35%,” reported Dr. Bauer, a cardiologist and director of the internal medicine clinic, University of Innsbruck (Austria). It showed that the types and frequency of arrhythmias were “comparable to those of post-MI patients with reduced LVEF.”

The ability to assess risk is potentially significant because “the majority of cardiovascular complications, including sudden death, occur in patients with only moderately reduced LVEF,” explained Dr. Bauer.

Despite the greater risk, “there are no preventive strategies so far” currently available for this group, he said.

The SMART-MI study confirms the need for treatments, confirms a method for monitoring risk, and might provide the basis for trials designed to test treatments to modify this risk, he added.
 

ECG used to define autonomic dysfunction

In the SMART MI protocol, 1,305 survivors of MI with LVEF of 36%-50% at 33 participating centers in Austria and Germany were evaluated with a 20-minute high resolution electrocardiogram. They were enrolled and randomized if they demonstrated cardiac autonomic dysfunction on at least two validated ECG biomarkers.

The 400 participants were randomized to implantation of a ICM, which transmitted daily reports to a ICM core laboratory, or to conventional follow-up.

After a median follow-up of 21 months, serious events were detected in 60 of the 201 patients in the ICM group and 12 of the 199 patients in the control group (29% vs. 6%). Serious adverse events were defined as those that would typically warrant therapy, such as prolonged atrial fibrillation (at least 6 minutes) high-degree atrioventricular block, and sustained ventricular tachycardia.

The difference in the detection rate, which was the primary endpoint, was highly significant (P < .0001), but the study was also able to confirm that these events predicted MACCE, a secondary study endpoint. In those with a serious arrhythmia, the hazard ratio for subsequent MACCE was approximately sevenfold greater relative to those without a serious arrhythmia. This was true of those in the ICM group (HR, 6.8; P < .001) and controls (HR 7.3; P < .001).

Arrhythmias warn of impending complications

“The data show that the prognostic impact of detecting a serious arrhythmia does not depend on the mode of detection,” Dr. Bauer reported. The data also confirm that “subclinical serious arrhythmia events are a warning signal for an impending complication.”

Although more interventions – including pacemakers, catheter ablations, and oral anticoagulants – were offered to patients in the experimental arm, “the study was not powered to show differences in outcomes,” and, in fact, no significant differences were observed, according to Dr. Bauer. However, the evidence that ICM is effective for detecting arrhythmias does provide a structure on which to build clinical trials.

“We now need the trials to see if ICM can change practice and improve outcomes,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, a staff cardiologist at the Hospital Santa Cruz, Lisbon. He acknowledged that this study proves that ICM can detect serious arrhythmias in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction, but “we need to develop and test treatment paths.”

Dr. Aguiar considers SMART-MI an important study that “goes to the heart” of a common clinical dilemma.

“In clinical practice, we see patients with LVEF that is not that suppressed and so do not have a class I indication for ICM, but there are often features that might have you concerned and make you think it would be great if the LVEF was 35% or lower [to justify intervention],” Dr. Aguiar said.
 

Data provide insight on unaddressed risk group

SMART-MI confirms earlier evidence that post-MI patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction are at high risk. Currently, this relative increase in risk goes “unaddressed,” according to Dr. Bauer. Although he contended that the risk itself “could be an indication for ICM in a high-risk patient group without classically defined left ventricular dysfunction,” he agreed that the ultimate value of this trial might be that it “opens a window” for a rationale to test preventive strategies.

An invited ESC discussant, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, praised the study for drawing attention to the risk of events in a subset of post-MI patients with LVEF of 35% or greater. However, he suggested that criteria other than those based on ECG might be more sensitive for selecting patients who might benefit from intervention.

“We do not know whether additional methods of establishing risk, such as imaging, might be valuable,” said Dr. Hindricks, chief of the department of arrhythmology in the Heart Institute of the University of Leipzig (Germany). He believes work in this area is needed to ensure appropriate entry criteria for interventional trials designed to modify risk in post-MI patients who do not meet the traditional definition of reduced ejection fraction.

Dr. Bauer reports financial relationships with Medtronic, which sponsored this study, as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Novartis. Dr. Aguiar reports no relevant financial conflicts.

After a myocardial infarction, implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are sensitive for detecting serious arrhythmias in patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction but only moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), according to results of the randomized SMART-MI trial.

wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images

When remote monitoring with the ICM was compared with conventional follow-up in this group of patients, serious arrhythmic events were detected at a nearly sixfold greater rate, reported Axel Bauer, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study further showed that these events were closely associated with subsequent major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

“SMART-MI is the first study to test an implantable device in high-risk MI patients with a LVEF greater than 35%,” reported Dr. Bauer, a cardiologist and director of the internal medicine clinic, University of Innsbruck (Austria). It showed that the types and frequency of arrhythmias were “comparable to those of post-MI patients with reduced LVEF.”

The ability to assess risk is potentially significant because “the majority of cardiovascular complications, including sudden death, occur in patients with only moderately reduced LVEF,” explained Dr. Bauer.

Despite the greater risk, “there are no preventive strategies so far” currently available for this group, he said.

The SMART-MI study confirms the need for treatments, confirms a method for monitoring risk, and might provide the basis for trials designed to test treatments to modify this risk, he added.
 

ECG used to define autonomic dysfunction

In the SMART MI protocol, 1,305 survivors of MI with LVEF of 36%-50% at 33 participating centers in Austria and Germany were evaluated with a 20-minute high resolution electrocardiogram. They were enrolled and randomized if they demonstrated cardiac autonomic dysfunction on at least two validated ECG biomarkers.

The 400 participants were randomized to implantation of a ICM, which transmitted daily reports to a ICM core laboratory, or to conventional follow-up.

After a median follow-up of 21 months, serious events were detected in 60 of the 201 patients in the ICM group and 12 of the 199 patients in the control group (29% vs. 6%). Serious adverse events were defined as those that would typically warrant therapy, such as prolonged atrial fibrillation (at least 6 minutes) high-degree atrioventricular block, and sustained ventricular tachycardia.

The difference in the detection rate, which was the primary endpoint, was highly significant (P < .0001), but the study was also able to confirm that these events predicted MACCE, a secondary study endpoint. In those with a serious arrhythmia, the hazard ratio for subsequent MACCE was approximately sevenfold greater relative to those without a serious arrhythmia. This was true of those in the ICM group (HR, 6.8; P < .001) and controls (HR 7.3; P < .001).

Arrhythmias warn of impending complications

“The data show that the prognostic impact of detecting a serious arrhythmia does not depend on the mode of detection,” Dr. Bauer reported. The data also confirm that “subclinical serious arrhythmia events are a warning signal for an impending complication.”

Although more interventions – including pacemakers, catheter ablations, and oral anticoagulants – were offered to patients in the experimental arm, “the study was not powered to show differences in outcomes,” and, in fact, no significant differences were observed, according to Dr. Bauer. However, the evidence that ICM is effective for detecting arrhythmias does provide a structure on which to build clinical trials.

“We now need the trials to see if ICM can change practice and improve outcomes,” said Carlos Aguiar, MD, a staff cardiologist at the Hospital Santa Cruz, Lisbon. He acknowledged that this study proves that ICM can detect serious arrhythmias in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction, but “we need to develop and test treatment paths.”

Dr. Aguiar considers SMART-MI an important study that “goes to the heart” of a common clinical dilemma.

“In clinical practice, we see patients with LVEF that is not that suppressed and so do not have a class I indication for ICM, but there are often features that might have you concerned and make you think it would be great if the LVEF was 35% or lower [to justify intervention],” Dr. Aguiar said.
 

Data provide insight on unaddressed risk group

SMART-MI confirms earlier evidence that post-MI patients with cardiac autonomic dysfunction are at high risk. Currently, this relative increase in risk goes “unaddressed,” according to Dr. Bauer. Although he contended that the risk itself “could be an indication for ICM in a high-risk patient group without classically defined left ventricular dysfunction,” he agreed that the ultimate value of this trial might be that it “opens a window” for a rationale to test preventive strategies.

An invited ESC discussant, Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, praised the study for drawing attention to the risk of events in a subset of post-MI patients with LVEF of 35% or greater. However, he suggested that criteria other than those based on ECG might be more sensitive for selecting patients who might benefit from intervention.

“We do not know whether additional methods of establishing risk, such as imaging, might be valuable,” said Dr. Hindricks, chief of the department of arrhythmology in the Heart Institute of the University of Leipzig (Germany). He believes work in this area is needed to ensure appropriate entry criteria for interventional trials designed to modify risk in post-MI patients who do not meet the traditional definition of reduced ejection fraction.

Dr. Bauer reports financial relationships with Medtronic, which sponsored this study, as well as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, and Novartis. Dr. Aguiar reports no relevant financial conflicts.

A previously healthy infant who survived sudden cardiac arrest at home was later found to have a de novo likely pathogenic genetic mutation in the SOS1 gene, which might be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death, report clinicians from Missouri.

SOS1 gene variants are associated with Noonan syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the RAS/MAPK signaling pathway. However, on presentation, the infant had none of the usual structural cardiac findings typical of Noonan syndrome, such as valvular disease or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

“To date, this is the first case reported of a ventricular fibrillation arrest in a patient with a RASopathy-related variant prior to development of the typically associated structural cardiac phenotype and may represent a previously unrecognized etiology of sudden death during infancy,” write Christopher W. Follansbee, MD, and Lindsey Malloy-Walton, DO, from the Ward Family Heart Center, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, and the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

“Genetic testing in cases of unexplained aborted or sudden cardiac deaths, even in previously healthy children, can be valuable in establishing a diagnosis, determining the prognosis, and assessing risk to family members,” they add in a news release.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton describe the case in a report published in the August issue of HeartRhythm Case Reports.
 

Case details

The case involved a 2-month-old girl who did not wake up as usual for her morning feeding. Her mother found her limp, pale, and having difficulty breathing.

When emergency medical services arrived, the infant had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated and an external defibrillator revealed coarse ventricular fibrillation. An initial shock of 10 J was given with conversion to an atrial rhythm with aberrant ventricular conduction.

The infant developed increasing frequency of ectopy before degenerating to ventricular fibrillation. A second shock with 20 J was unsuccessful, but a third shock of 20 J successfully converted the rhythm to sinus with aberrant ventricular conduction and atrial ectopy with return of spontaneous circulation.

In the ICU, the infant displayed incessant, nonsustained ectopic atrial tachycardia, with rapid episodes of ectopic atrial tachycardia with ventricular rates up to 300 beats per minute in the setting of seizure activity, they report. 

With intravenous lorazepam, seizure activity resolved and treatment with amiodarone boluses led to transient establishment of sinus rhythm.

The QTc was noted to be above 500 ms and Brugada positioning of leads was unrevealing, the authors note.

Transthoracic echocardiogram showed a structurally normal heart with normal valve morphology and a patent foramen ovale with left-to-right flow. The initial ejection fraction was 49%. There was no evidence of ventricular hypertrophy, dilation, or noncompaction.

The infant was started on an esmolol infusion titrated to 225 μg/kg per min with frequent, nonsustained breakthrough of ectopic atrial tachycardia. Over the next 24 hours, the QTc interval normalized with normal T-wave morphology.

A procainamide challenge was negative. Cardiac MRI revealed normalization of ventricular function.

The genetics team was called in and a standard three-generation family history was obtained. An older sibling, 2 years of age, had no known medical conditions. The child’s paternal grandfather had died of a presumed myocardial infarction in his 50s, but no autopsy had been performed.

There was no family history of congenital heart disease, arrhythmia, sudden death, cardiomyopathy, recurrent syncope, congenital deafness, seizure, miscarriage, or developmental delay. Electrocardiograms obtained on the parents were normal.

Genetic testing using a comprehensive arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy next-generation sequencing panel revealed a de novo likely pathogenetic variant of the SOS1 gene associated with Noonan syndrome.

Given the aborted sudden cardiac death, the patient underwent dual-chamber epicardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation prior to discharge.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton say a limitation to the case report is the lack of definitive association of the SOS1 variant with the presentation.

However, knowing the infant has the SOS1 variant and a history of aborted sudden death will allow for “monitoring and early intervention on typical manifestations of Noonan syndrome as the patient grows,” they say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A previously healthy infant who survived sudden cardiac arrest at home was later found to have a de novo likely pathogenic genetic mutation in the SOS1 gene, which might be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death, report clinicians from Missouri.

SOS1 gene variants are associated with Noonan syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the RAS/MAPK signaling pathway. However, on presentation, the infant had none of the usual structural cardiac findings typical of Noonan syndrome, such as valvular disease or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

“To date, this is the first case reported of a ventricular fibrillation arrest in a patient with a RASopathy-related variant prior to development of the typically associated structural cardiac phenotype and may represent a previously unrecognized etiology of sudden death during infancy,” write Christopher W. Follansbee, MD, and Lindsey Malloy-Walton, DO, from the Ward Family Heart Center, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, and the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

“Genetic testing in cases of unexplained aborted or sudden cardiac deaths, even in previously healthy children, can be valuable in establishing a diagnosis, determining the prognosis, and assessing risk to family members,” they add in a news release.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton describe the case in a report published in the August issue of HeartRhythm Case Reports.
 

Case details

The case involved a 2-month-old girl who did not wake up as usual for her morning feeding. Her mother found her limp, pale, and having difficulty breathing.

When emergency medical services arrived, the infant had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated and an external defibrillator revealed coarse ventricular fibrillation. An initial shock of 10 J was given with conversion to an atrial rhythm with aberrant ventricular conduction.

The infant developed increasing frequency of ectopy before degenerating to ventricular fibrillation. A second shock with 20 J was unsuccessful, but a third shock of 20 J successfully converted the rhythm to sinus with aberrant ventricular conduction and atrial ectopy with return of spontaneous circulation.

In the ICU, the infant displayed incessant, nonsustained ectopic atrial tachycardia, with rapid episodes of ectopic atrial tachycardia with ventricular rates up to 300 beats per minute in the setting of seizure activity, they report. 

With intravenous lorazepam, seizure activity resolved and treatment with amiodarone boluses led to transient establishment of sinus rhythm.

The QTc was noted to be above 500 ms and Brugada positioning of leads was unrevealing, the authors note.

Transthoracic echocardiogram showed a structurally normal heart with normal valve morphology and a patent foramen ovale with left-to-right flow. The initial ejection fraction was 49%. There was no evidence of ventricular hypertrophy, dilation, or noncompaction.

The infant was started on an esmolol infusion titrated to 225 μg/kg per min with frequent, nonsustained breakthrough of ectopic atrial tachycardia. Over the next 24 hours, the QTc interval normalized with normal T-wave morphology.

A procainamide challenge was negative. Cardiac MRI revealed normalization of ventricular function.

The genetics team was called in and a standard three-generation family history was obtained. An older sibling, 2 years of age, had no known medical conditions. The child’s paternal grandfather had died of a presumed myocardial infarction in his 50s, but no autopsy had been performed.

There was no family history of congenital heart disease, arrhythmia, sudden death, cardiomyopathy, recurrent syncope, congenital deafness, seizure, miscarriage, or developmental delay. Electrocardiograms obtained on the parents were normal.

Genetic testing using a comprehensive arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy next-generation sequencing panel revealed a de novo likely pathogenetic variant of the SOS1 gene associated with Noonan syndrome.

Given the aborted sudden cardiac death, the patient underwent dual-chamber epicardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation prior to discharge.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton say a limitation to the case report is the lack of definitive association of the SOS1 variant with the presentation.

However, knowing the infant has the SOS1 variant and a history of aborted sudden death will allow for “monitoring and early intervention on typical manifestations of Noonan syndrome as the patient grows,” they say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A previously healthy infant who survived sudden cardiac arrest at home was later found to have a de novo likely pathogenic genetic mutation in the SOS1 gene, which might be an unrecognized cause of sudden infant death, report clinicians from Missouri.

SOS1 gene variants are associated with Noonan syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the RAS/MAPK signaling pathway. However, on presentation, the infant had none of the usual structural cardiac findings typical of Noonan syndrome, such as valvular disease or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

“To date, this is the first case reported of a ventricular fibrillation arrest in a patient with a RASopathy-related variant prior to development of the typically associated structural cardiac phenotype and may represent a previously unrecognized etiology of sudden death during infancy,” write Christopher W. Follansbee, MD, and Lindsey Malloy-Walton, DO, from the Ward Family Heart Center, Children’s Mercy Kansas City, and the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

“Genetic testing in cases of unexplained aborted or sudden cardiac deaths, even in previously healthy children, can be valuable in establishing a diagnosis, determining the prognosis, and assessing risk to family members,” they add in a news release.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton describe the case in a report published in the August issue of HeartRhythm Case Reports.
 

Case details

The case involved a 2-month-old girl who did not wake up as usual for her morning feeding. Her mother found her limp, pale, and having difficulty breathing.

When emergency medical services arrived, the infant had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated and an external defibrillator revealed coarse ventricular fibrillation. An initial shock of 10 J was given with conversion to an atrial rhythm with aberrant ventricular conduction.

The infant developed increasing frequency of ectopy before degenerating to ventricular fibrillation. A second shock with 20 J was unsuccessful, but a third shock of 20 J successfully converted the rhythm to sinus with aberrant ventricular conduction and atrial ectopy with return of spontaneous circulation.

In the ICU, the infant displayed incessant, nonsustained ectopic atrial tachycardia, with rapid episodes of ectopic atrial tachycardia with ventricular rates up to 300 beats per minute in the setting of seizure activity, they report. 

With intravenous lorazepam, seizure activity resolved and treatment with amiodarone boluses led to transient establishment of sinus rhythm.

The QTc was noted to be above 500 ms and Brugada positioning of leads was unrevealing, the authors note.

Transthoracic echocardiogram showed a structurally normal heart with normal valve morphology and a patent foramen ovale with left-to-right flow. The initial ejection fraction was 49%. There was no evidence of ventricular hypertrophy, dilation, or noncompaction.

The infant was started on an esmolol infusion titrated to 225 μg/kg per min with frequent, nonsustained breakthrough of ectopic atrial tachycardia. Over the next 24 hours, the QTc interval normalized with normal T-wave morphology.

A procainamide challenge was negative. Cardiac MRI revealed normalization of ventricular function.

The genetics team was called in and a standard three-generation family history was obtained. An older sibling, 2 years of age, had no known medical conditions. The child’s paternal grandfather had died of a presumed myocardial infarction in his 50s, but no autopsy had been performed.

There was no family history of congenital heart disease, arrhythmia, sudden death, cardiomyopathy, recurrent syncope, congenital deafness, seizure, miscarriage, or developmental delay. Electrocardiograms obtained on the parents were normal.

Genetic testing using a comprehensive arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy next-generation sequencing panel revealed a de novo likely pathogenetic variant of the SOS1 gene associated with Noonan syndrome.

Given the aborted sudden cardiac death, the patient underwent dual-chamber epicardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation prior to discharge.

Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton say a limitation to the case report is the lack of definitive association of the SOS1 variant with the presentation.

However, knowing the infant has the SOS1 variant and a history of aborted sudden death will allow for “monitoring and early intervention on typical manifestations of Noonan syndrome as the patient grows,” they say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Follansbee and Dr. Malloy-Walton have disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A study from Japan suggests that a history of cardiovascular events in a spouse may elevate risk for future CV events in the other partner, with one caveat: Men in the cohort study were at increased risk if their wives had such a history, but the association was only one way. The risk of events didn’t go up for women with husbands who had previously experienced a CV event.

byryo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The results highlight the need for clinicians to screen and possibly intervene with a primary CV prevention strategy “not only first-degree relatives but also spouses with a history of cardiovascular disease,” which is not currently part of the primary prevention guidelines, Hiroyuki Ohbe, MD, University of Tokyo, told this news organization.

In their study published online July 9 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Dr. Ohbe and Hideo Yasunaga, MD, PhD, of the same institution, assessed the risk of subsequent CV events in adults with a spouse who had experienced a stroke of any kind or had clinical ischemic heart disease such as angina or myocardial infarction.

Johanna Contreras, MD, director of heart failure at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, is not surprised by the finding that a wife’s CV history is linked to the CV risk in the husband.

“I see this often in my practice. When you live with someone, you also behave in a similar way as the other person,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization. “For example, couples who live together are likely to both exercise and have a healthy diet and not smoke.”

And most notably, she said, “the women are usually the ones who drive the healthy behaviors in the family; they watch what the family eats, where they eat, when they eat, and the men tend to allow the women to guide this behavior.”

Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga agree, proposing that different results for men and women in the analysis may be because of the dependence of working-aged men on their wives for major aspects of lifestyle, such as diet and exercise. Moreover, they write, increased psychological and physical stress from taking care of a spouse with CV disease may also play a role, as caregivers often neglect their own health.

The team identified 13,759 adults in a large administrative database with no history of CV disease whose spouse had such a history at their first health checkup; they were the exposure group. The team matched each of them with up to four individuals (n = 55,027) who had no CV disease history and spouses without CV disease at their first health checkup; they were the nonexposure group.

The mean observation period was 7.9 years from the first health checkup, at which the subjects’ mean age was 56 years. During the follow-up, more people in the exposure group than the nonexposure group had a history of CV events, 0.6% versus 0.4%.

In the overall cohort, the hazard ratio for future severe CV events – heart failure hospitalization or MI – in those with spouses with a history of CV disease was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.90).

When stratified by sex, men whose wives had CV disease showed a significantly increased risk of a future severe CV event (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22-2.32). But women with husbands with CV disease did not (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.83).

The results of all four sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analysis, both in the overall cohort and in the cohorts stratified by sex. The investigators performed multivariate survival analyses: one that excluded people whose partners had died, one that included death by any cause as an outcome, and one with propensity score matching.

Further studies are needed to confirm their observations and test whether a primary prevention strategy targeted at married couples could reduce CV events, note Dr. Ohbe and Dr. Yasunaga.

The findings have implications for everyday clinical practice, Dr. Contreras said. “When I see a patient who is married and has had a heart attack, I will insist on seeing the partner as well, and I will counsel them on working together to change their lifestyle,” she said in an interview.

“Often when you have that discussion with the couple after one has a heart attack, they quit smoking together, they go the gym together, and they get healthier together,” she said. “That’s now a very important conversation we have before they leave the hospital.”

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Dr. Ohbe, Dr. Yasunaga, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.