Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND: The survival benefit of a strategy of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) added to guideline-directed medical therapy, as compared with medical therapy alone, in patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure, and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction remains unclear. METHODS: From July 2002 to May 2007, a total of 1212 patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less and coronary artery disease amenable to CABG were randomly assigned to undergo CABG plus medical therapy (CABG group, 610 patients) or medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group, 602 patients). The primary outcome was death from any cause. Major secondary outcomes included death from cardiovascular causes and death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. The median duration of follow-up, including the current extended-follow-up study, was 9.8 years. RESULTS: A primary outcome event occurred in 359 patients (58.9%) in the CABG group and in 398 patients (66.1%) in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with CABG vs. medical therapy, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.97; P=0.02 by log-rank test). A total of 247 patients (40.5%) in the CABG group and 297 patients (49.3%) in the medical-therapy group died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.006 by log-rank test). Death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 467 patients (76.6%) in the CABG group and in 524 patients (87.0%) in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.82; P<0.001 by log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, the rates of death from any cause, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes were significantly lower over 10 years among patients who underwent CABG in addition to receiving medical therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; STICH [and STICHES] ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.)

Repetitive use of levosimendan for treatment of chronic advanced heart failure: Clinical evidence, practical considerations, and perspectives: An expert panel consensus

Background The intravenous inodilator levosimendan was developed for the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. In the last decade scientific and clinical interest has arisen for its repetitive or intermittent use in patients with advanced chronic, but not necessarily acutely decompensated, heart failure. Recent studies have suggested long-lasting favourable effects of levosimendan when administered repetitively, in terms of haemodynamic parameters, neurohormonal and inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. The existing data, however, requires further exploration to allow for definitive conclusions on the safety and clinical efficacy of repetitive use of levosimendan. Methods and results A panel of 30 experts from 15 countries convened to review and discuss the existing data, and agreed on the patient groups that can be considered to potentially benefit from intermittent treatment with levosimendan. The panel gave recommendations regarding patient dosing and monitoring, derived from the available evidence and from clinical experience. Conclusions The current data suggest that in selected patients and support out-of-hospital care, intermittent/repetitive levosimendan can be used in advanced heart failure to maintain patient stability. Further studies are needed to focus on morbidity and mortality outcomes, dosing intervals, and patient monitoring. Recommendations for the design of further clinical studies are made

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: -Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: -We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: -Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255

Risk Related to Pre-Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetes Mellitus in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pre-diabetes mellitus and its consequences in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction are not known. We investigated these in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined clinical outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction according to history of diabetes mellitus and glycemic status (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]: /=6.5% [>/=48 mmol/mol; diabetes mellitus]), in Cox regression models adjusted for known predictors of poor outcome. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (n=2907 [35%]) had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality compared with those without a history of diabetes mellitus: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.52; P6.5%) and known diabetes mellitus compared with those with HbA1c<6.0% was 1.39 (1.17-1.64); P<0.001 and 1.64 (1.43-1.87); P<0.001, respectively. Patients with pre-diabetes mellitus were also at higher risk (hazard ratio, 1.27 [1.10-1.47]; P<0.001) compared with those with HbA1c<6.0%. The benefit of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consistent across the range of HbA1c in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, dysglycemia is common and pre-diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (compared with patients with no diabetes mellitus and HbA1c <6.0%). LCZ696 was beneficial compared with enalapril, irrespective of glycemic status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255

Dutogliptin in Combination with Filgrastim in Early Recovery Post-Myocardial Infarction&mdash;The REC-DUT-002 Trial

Patients with acute myocardial infarction are at high risk for developing heart failure due to scar development. Although regenerative approaches are evolving, consistent clinical benefits have not yet been reported. Treatment with dutogliptin, a second-generation DPP-4 inhibitor, in co-administration with filgrastim (G-CSF) has been shown to enhance endogenous repair mechanisms in experimental models. The REC-DUT-002 trial was a phase 2, multicenter, double-blind placebo-controlled trial which explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of dutogliptin and filgrastim in patients with ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Patients (n = 47, 56.1 &plusmn; 10.7 years, 29% female) with STEMI, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF &le; 45%) and successful revascularization following primary PCI were randomized to receive either study treatment or matching placebo. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) was performed within 72 h post-PCI and repeated after 3 months. The study was closed out early due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to serious adverse events (SAE). Predefined mean changes within cMRI-derived functional and structural parameters from baseline to 90 days did not differ between placebo and treatment (left ventricular end-diastolic volume: +13.7 mL vs. +15.7 mL; LV-EF: +5.7% vs. +5.9%). Improvement in cardiac tissue health over time was noted in both groups: full-width at half-maximum late gadolinium enhancement (FWHM LGE) mass (placebo: &minus;12.7 g, treatment: &minus;19.9 g; p = 0.23). Concomitant treatment was well tolerated, and no safety issues were detected. Based on the results, the FDA and EMA have already approved an adequately powered large outcome trial

A Randomized, double-blind, dose ranging clinical trial of intravenous FDY-5301 in acute STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI

Background Ischemia-reperfusion injury remains a major clinical problem in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), leading to myocardial damage despite early reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). There are no effective therapies to limit ischemia-reperfusion injury, which is caused by multiple pathways activated by rapid tissue reoxygenation and the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). FDY-5301 contains sodium iodide, a ubiquitous inorganic halide and elemental reducing agent that can act as a catalytic anti-peroxidant. We tested the feasibility, safety and potential utility of FDY-5301 as a treatment to limit ischemia-reperfusion injury, in patients with first-time STEMI undergoing emergency PPCI. Methods STEMI patients (n = 120, median 62 years) presenting within 12 h of chest pain onset were randomized at 20 PPCI centers, in a double blind Phase 2 clinical trial, to receive FDY-5301 (0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg) or placebo prior to reperfusion, to evaluate the feasibility endpoints. Participants underwent continuous ECG monitoring for 14 days after PPCI to address pre-specified cardiac arrhythmia safety end points and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 72 h and at 3 months to assess exploratory efficacy end points. Results Intravenous FDY-5301 was delivered before re-opening of the infarct-related artery in 97% participants and increased plasma iodide levels ~1000-fold within 2 min. There was no significant increase in the primary safety end point of incidence of cardiac arrhythmias of concern. MRI at 3 months revealed median final infarct sizes in placebo vs. 2.0 mg/kg FDY-5301-treated patients of 14.9% vs. 8.5%, and LV ejection fractions of 53.9% vs. 63.2%, respectively, although the study was not powered to detect statistical significance. In patients receiving FDY-5301, there was a significant reduction in the levels of MPO, MMP2 and NTproBNP after PPCI, but no reduction with placebo. Conclusions Intravenous FDY-5301, delivered immediately prior to PPCI in acute STEMI, is feasible, safe, and shows potential efficacy. A larger trial is justified to test the effects of FDY-5301 on acute ischemia-reperfusion injury and clinical outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: CT.gov NCT03470441; EudraCT 2017-000047-4

Activation of the Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Pathway in Human Heart Failure

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) activation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of acute and chronic myocardial dysfunction and heart failure. The goal of the present study was to investigate PARP activation in human heart failure, and to correlate PARP activation with various indices of apoptosis and oxidative and nitrosative stress in healthy (donor) and failing (NYHA class III–IV) human heart tissue samples. Higher levels of oxidized protein end-products were found in failing hearts compared with donor heart samples. On the other hand, no differences in tyrosine nitration (a marker of peroxynitrite generation) were detected. Activation of PARP was demonstrated in the failing hearts by an increased abundance of poly-ADP ribosylated proteins. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that PARP activation was localized to the nucleus of the cardiomyocytes from the failing hearts. The expression of full-length PARP-1 was not significantly different in donor and failing hearts. The expression of caspase-9, in contrast, was significantly higher in the failing than in the donor hearts. Immunohistochemical analysis was used to detect the activation of mitochondrial apoptotic pathways. We found no significant translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) into the nucleus. Overall, the current data provide evidence of oxidative stress and PARP activation in human heart failure. Interventional studies with antioxidants or PARP inhibitors are required to define the specific roles of these factors in the pathogenesis of human heart failure

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years. © 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved