Nair, Ajith P

ABSTRACT Background Genetic testing for cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia (CM/ARRH) provides diagnostic information and informs screening for at-risk relatives. Clinical guidelines recommend genetic testing for these conditions; however, data on how genetic test results influence clinical management recommendations are limited. Here, we determined the frequency of cardiologist-recommended management changes for patients following CM/ARRH genetic testing. Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between April 2016 and April 2024. Genetically-experienced cardiologists at multicenter academic clinical practices were recruited for participation to complete surveys indicating clinical decision making on patients who had genetic testing. Cases for review were randomly selected to have both positive and non-positive results. Results Among 249 patients (138 positive, 111 non-positive), 136 (54.6%) received clinical management recommendations for their own or their at-risk relatives’ care. Of these, 75 (55.1%) received recommendations for the patient’s own care, most frequently additional diagnostic tests/procedures (n=33). Compared to non-positive results, patients with positive results were more likely to receive recommendations for their own management (66/138, 47.8% vs 9/111, 8.1%; P<0.00001). Patients with positive results in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy genes had 263% higher odds of recommended management changes compared to those with TTN (OR=3.63, CI:1.40-9.84, P=0.009). Conclusions The results from CM/ARRH genetic testing on affected patients influenced cardiologists’ medical decision making and management recommendations. Additional research is needed to evaluate how genetic testing for CM/ARRH impact health outcomes.

Abstract Heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction is associated with elevated left atrial pressure at rest due to fluid overload or during exercise, leading to pulmonary venous congestion. Even with available treatments, heart failure hospitalizations remain high, and improvements in quality-of-life scores and functional capacity are modest. Thus, there is growing interest in non-pharmacological methods to decompress the left atrium and improve heart failure symptoms and outcomes. Left-to-right shunts have emerged as a potential therapeutic option to reduce left atrial hypertension, improve quality of life, and impact long-term outcomes. This nascent field carries both potential therapeutic promise and many unanswered questions. Recent data have questioned whether the effects of this therapy vary based on the left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary vascular resistance, and/or right ventricular structure and function. This review discusses the basis for left-to-right shunt therapies, synthesizes past and ongoing clinical trials, and offers future directions.

Background: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome—a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status—was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization. Results: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P =0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P =0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P =0.004). Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.