Rocha‐Singh, Krishna J.

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.

Background: Paclitaxel-containing devices (PTXDs) significantly reduce reintervention in patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. A recent aggregate-data meta-analysis reported increased late mortality in patients with peripheral artery disease treated with PTXDs. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate mortality. Methods: Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration–approved and commercially available devices in the United States provided deidentified individual patient data for independent analysis. Cox proportional hazards 1-stage meta-analysis models using intention-to-treat methods were used for the primary analysis. A secondary analysis of recovered missing vital status data was performed. The impact of control crossover to PTXDs, cause-specific mortality, and drug dose mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 2185 subjects and 386 deaths from 8 PTXD trials with 4-year median follow-up were identified. The primary analysis indicated a 38% (95% CI, 6% to 80%) increased relative mortality risk, corresponding to 4.6% absolute increase, at 5 years associated with PTXD use. Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24% and 23%, respectively. With inclusion of recovered vital status data, the excess relative mortality risk was 27% (95% CI, 3%–58%). This observation was consistent across various scenarios, including as-treated analyses, with no evidence of increased risk over time with PTXDs. Mortality risk tended to be increased for all major causes of death. There were no subgroup differences. No drug dose–mortality association was identified. Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis, based on the most complete available data set of mortality events from PTXD randomized controlled trials, identified an absolute 4.6% increased mortality risk associated with PTXD use.

AbstractObjectivesTo propose a classification system for characterizing angiographic femoropopliteal artery restenosis patterns associated with common endovascular modalities.BackgroundPeripheral artery disease is a worldwide issue affecting millions of people. Despite a myriad of endovascular technologies available to treat peripheral artery disease of the femoropopliteal arteries, restenosis remains a common failure mode. Characterizing common patterns of restenosis is important to discern the potential impact of baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics, as well as treatment modalities on either the primary success or the failure patterns associated with restenosis.MethodsStudies included in the analysis were from previous core laboratory‐adjudicated femoropopliteal artery disease trials and registries reflecting a wide array of treatment modalities.ResultsFrom the subjects enrolled and analyzed, there were 403 total angiograms for analysis and adjudication. Target lesion revascularization images of the 32 validation cases were evaluated for index treated length, diameter stenosis, and lesion morphology characteristics. The following lesion types are proposed: Type 1 “Focal” pattern, which may be “Edge Proximal” or “Edge Distal” depending on location; a Type 2 “Multifocal” pattern which may also exhibit edge restenosis, but may also be “Edge Bilateral”; a Type 3 “Moderate” pattern and a Type 4 “Diffuse” pattern; and finally, a Type 5 “Occlusion”.ConclusionsA classification system that enables healthcare professionals to anticipate and describe failures following the index procedure, thereby impacting the choice of options for retreatment, may facilitate consistency and standardization within the heterogeneous field of endovascular device treatments for the femoropopliteal artery.