Cleland, John G F

BACKGROUND: With evolving therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the benefits of adding a defibrillator in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remain unclear, particularly for nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). This study evaluates long-term survival among patients with NICM treated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). METHODS: DECIDE-CRT (Cardiac Resynchronization With or Without Defibrillator in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy) is a multicenter cohort study across 170 US Veterans Affairs hospitals. We identified patients with NICM receiving primary-prevention CRT-P or CRT-D between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2020. Using a propensity score approach, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between the CRT-P and CRT-D groups. An inverse probability of treatment weighting–weighted Cox model estimated hazards for all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included generator replacement, device-related infections, hospitalization for heart failure, and ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: Of 16 609 CRT recipients, 3965 met NICM primary-prevention criteria (CRT-D=3158; CRT- P =807). At baseline, patients with NICM receiving CRT-P were much older, with more cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities compared with the CRT-D group. During the median follow-up of 5.2 years, the mortality rate for CRT-P versus CRT-D was 9.46 versus 9.21 per 100 person-years (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.71–1.13]; P =0.66). The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality using the inverse probability of treatment weighting-Cox model was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.71–1.13; P =0.34). There was no difference in adjusted hazard for heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.86–1.87]), while the CRT-D group had higher rates of generator replacement and device-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide observational study from the Veterans Affairs Health system did not demonstrate a clear survival advantage with the addition of a defibrillator among patients with NICM receiving CRT although residual confounding cannot be excluded. Given the uncertainty surrounding the incremental benefit of the defibrillator in this setting, a randomized trial is needed to test the incremental value of CRT-D over CRT-P in NICM.

BACKGROUND: Despite favorable hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects, endothelin receptor antagonists have not improved outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), possibly because they cause fluid retention. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (SERENADE [Macitentan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Pulmonary Vascular Disease]), we evaluated the effects of an endothelin receptor antagonist, macitentan, in patients with HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%, and pulmonary vascular disease. After a 4-week placebo run-in (to ensure clinical stability), followed by a 5-week single-blind macitentan run-in, patients who did not exhibit fluid retention were randomized to macitentan or placebo. The primary end point was change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; baseline to 24 weeks); secondary end points included change in KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) clinical summary score (baseline to 24 weeks) and time to worsening HF by 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of 230 patients enrolled, 28 were excluded during the placebo run-in, 60 excluded during the macitentan run-in, and 142 were randomized. Macitentan had no effect on change in NT-proBNP (geometric mean ratio [macitentan/placebo], 1.02 [90% CI, 0.88–1.19]; P =0.79) or on secondary end points (placebo-corrected change in KCCQ clinical summary score, −3.5 [90% CI, −8.2 to +1.2]; P =0.22). Worsening HF occurred in 20 (28%) patients assigned to macitentan and 13 (18%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.48 [90% CI, 0.83–2.67]; P =0.24). More macitentan-treated patients developed fluid retention (16 [23%] versus 10 [14%]) and cardiac adverse events (33 [46%] versus 22 [31%]) versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a novel enrichment trial design to target pulmonary vascular disease and exclude treatment-related fluid retention in patients with HF and preserved/mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, macitentan neither lowered NT-proBNP nor improved HF outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT03153111 and NCT03714815.

Abstract Aims A hallmark of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is impaired exercise capacity of varying severity. The main determinant of exercise capacity is cardiac output (CO), however little information is available about the relation between the constituents of CO – heart rate and stroke volume – and exercise capacity in HFpEF. We sought to determine if a heterogeneity in heart rate and stroke volume response to exercise exists in patients with HFpEF and describe possible clinical phenotypes associated with differences in these responses. Methods and results Data from two prospective trials of HFpEF ( n = 108) and a study of healthy participants ( n = 42) with invasive haemodynamic measurements during exercise were utilized. Differences in central haemodynamic responses were analysed with regression models. Chronotropic incompetence was present in 39–56% of patients with HFpEF and 3–56% of healthy participants depending on the definition used, but some ( n = 47, 44%) had an increase in heart rate similar to that of healthy controls. Patients with HFpEF had a smaller increase in their stroke volume index (SVI) (HFpEF: +4 ± 10 mL/m 2 , healthy participants: +24 ± 12 mL/m 2 , P < 0.0001), indeed, SVI fell in 28% of patients at peak exercise. Higher body mass index and lower SVI at rest were associated with smaller increases in heart rate during exercise, whereas higher resting heart rate, and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker use were associated with a greater increase in SVI in patients with HFpEF. Conclusion The haemodynamic response to exercise was very heterogeneous among patients with HFpEF, with chronotropic incompetence observed in up to 56%, and 28% had impaired increase in SVI. This suggests that haemodynamic exercise testing may be useful to identify which HFpEF patients may benefit from interventions targeting stroke volume and chronotropic response.

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01920711.