Mohan, Rajeev

ImportanceGreater splanchnic nerve ablation may improve hemodynamics in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility and safety of endovascular right-sided splanchnic nerve ablation for volume management (SAVM).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a phase 2, double-blind, 1:1, sham-controlled, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 centers in the US and 1 center in the Republic of Georgia. Patients with HFpEF, left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, and invasively measured peak exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 25 mm Hg or greater were included. Study data were analyzed from May 2023 to June 2024.InterventionSAVM vs sham control procedure.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy end point was a reduction in legs-up and exercise PCWP at 1 month. The primary safety end point was serious device- or procedure-related adverse events at 1 month. Secondary efficacy end points included HF hospitalizations, changes in exercise function and health status through 12 months, and baseline to 1-month change in resting, legs-up, and 20-W exercise PCWP.ResultsA total of 90 patients (median [range] age, 71 [47-90] years; 58 female [64.4%]) were randomized at 15 centers (44 SAVM vs 46 sham). There were no differences in adverse events between groups. The primary efficacy end point did not differ between SAVM or sham (mean between-group difference in PCWP, −0.03 mm Hg; 95% CI, −2.5 to 2.5 mm Hg; P = .95). There were also no differences in the secondary efficacy end points. There was no difference in the primary safety end point between the treatment (6.8% [3 of 44]) and sham (2.2% [1 of 46]) groups (difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, −6.1% to 15.4%; P = .36). There was no difference in the incidence of orthostatic hypotension between the treatment (11.4% [5 of 44]) and sham (6.5% [3 of 46]) groups (difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, −9.2% to 18.8%; P = .48).Conclusions and RelevanceResults show that SAVM was safe and technically feasible, but it did not reduce exercise PCWP at 1 month or improve clinical outcomes at 12 months in a broad population of patients with HFpEF.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04592445

Aims In heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), excessive redistribution of blood volume into the central circulation leads to elevations of intracardiac pressures with exercise limitations. Splanchnic ablation for volume management (SAVM) has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention. Here we present preliminary safety and efficacy data from the initial roll‐in cohort of the REBALANCE‐HF trial. Methods and results The open‐label (roll‐in) arm of REBALANCE‐HF will enrol up to 30 patients, followed by the randomized, sham‐controlled portion of the trial (up to 80 additional patients). Patients with HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%, and invasive peak exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥25 mmHg underwent SAVM. Baseline and follow‐up assessments included resting and exercise PCWP, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), 6‐min walk test, and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). Efficacy and safety were assessed at 1 and 3 months. Here we report on the first 18 patients with HFpEF that have been enrolled into the roll‐in, open‐label arm of the study across nine centres; 14 (78%) female; 16 (89%) in NYHA class III; and median (interquartile range) age 75.2 (68.4–81) years, LVEF 61.0 (56.0–63.2)%, and average (standard deviation) 20 W exercise PCWP 36.4 (±8.6) mmHg. All 18 patients were successfully treated. Three non‐serious moderate device/procedure‐related adverse events were reported. At 1‐month, the mean PCWP at 20 W exercise decreased from 36.4 (±8.6) to 28.9 (±7.8) mmHg ( p < 0.01), NYHA class improved by at least one class in 33% of patients ( p = 0.02) and KCCQ score improved by 22.1 points (95% confidence interval 9.4–34.2) ( p < 0.01). Conclusion The preliminary open‐label results from the multicentre REBALANCE‐HF roll‐in cohort support the safety and efficacy of SAVM in HFpEF. The findings require confirmation in the ongoing randomized, sham‐controlled portion of the trial.