Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

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.

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

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

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

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

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

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

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

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