Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non‐cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer‐related mortality and morbidity. This is the third update of the review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer‐ or VTE‐related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 May 2021. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi‐randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. The main outcomes of interest were all‐cause mortality, cancer‐related mortality and VTE‐related mortality. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified for this 2021 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the certainty of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the certainty of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events. When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer‐related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; low‐certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; low‐certainty evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence). Neither study measured all‐cause mortality, VTE‐related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all‐cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence), cancer‐related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) or VTE‐related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; moderate‐certainty evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE‐related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer‐ or VTE‐related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good‐quality large‐scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made

Secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism after initial oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism

Background: Currently, little evidence is available on the length and type of anticoagulation used for extended treatment for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with unprovoked VTE who have completed initial oral anticoagulation therapy. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of available oral therapeutic options (aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) for extended thromboprophylaxis in adults with a first unprovoked VTE, to prevent VTE recurrence after completion of an acceptable initial oral anticoagulant treatment period, as defined in individual studies. Search methods: For this review, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (March 2017) as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). We also searched trials registries (March 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials in which patients with a first, symptomatic, objectively confirmed, unprovoked VTE, who had been initially treated with anticoagulants, were randomised to extended prophylaxis (vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), antiplatelet agents, or DOACs) versus no prophylaxis or placebo. We also included trials that compared one type of extended prophylaxis versus another type of extended prophylaxis. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Main results: Six studies with a combined total of 3436 participants met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared extended prophylaxis versus placebo: three compared warfarin versus placebo, and two compared aspirin versus placebo. One study compared one type of extended prophylaxis (rivaroxaban) versus another type of extended prophylaxis (aspirin). For extended prophylaxis versus placebo, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality to moderate owing to concerns arising from risks of selection and performance bias in individual studies. For all other outcomes in this review, we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low owing to concerns arising from risk of bias for the studies stated above, combined with concerns over imprecision. For extended prophylaxis versus other extended prophylaxis, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and major bleeding to moderate owing to concerns over imprecision. Risk of bias in the individual study was low. Meta-analysis showed that extended prophylaxis was no more effective than placebo in preventing VTE-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 6.98; 1862 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.98; low-quality evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.03; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.85; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.86; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 5.33; 1672 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.30; low-quality evidence), stroke (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.46; 1224 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.80; low-quality evidence), or myocardial infarction (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87; 1495 participants; 3 studies; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence). One study showed that the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban was associated with fewer recurrent VTEs than aspirin (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.54; 1389 participants; P = 0.0001; moderate-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in the incidence of major bleeding between rivaroxaban and aspirin (OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 25.51; 1389 participants; P = 0.30; moderate-quality evidence) nor in the incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; 1389 participants; 1 study; P = 0.69; moderate-quality evidence). Data on VTE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction were not yet available for participants with unprovoked VTE and will be incorporated in future versions of the review. Authors' conclusions: Evidence is currently insufficient to permit definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in prevention of recurrent VTE after initial oral anticoagulation therapy among participants with unprovoked VTE. Additional good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be reached

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. Objectives: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. Search methods: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 11 July 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Main results: No new studies were identified for this 2018 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events. When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low-quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low-quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low-quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate-quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate-quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low-quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Authors' conclusions: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made

Endothelin-1, outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, and effects of dapagliflozin: Findings from DAPA-HF

BACKGROUND: ET-1 (endothelin-1) is implicated in the pathophysiology of heart failure and renal disease. Its prognostic importance and relationship with kidney function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving contemporary treatment are uncertain. We investigated these and the efficacy of dapagliflozin according to ET-1 level in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure). METHODS: We investigated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure), change in kidney function, and the effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline ET-1 concentration, adjusting in Cox models for other recognized prognostic variables in heart failure including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on ET-1 level. RESULTS: Overall, 3048 participants had baseline ET-1 measurements of: tertile 1 (T1; ≤3.28 pg/mL; n=1016); T2 (>3.28–4.41 pg/mL; n=1022); and T3 (>4.41 pg/mL; n=1010). Patients with higher ET-1 were more likely male, more likely obese, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, worse functional status, and higher NT-proBNP and hs-TnT (high-sensitivity troponin-T). In the adjusted Cox models, higher baseline ET-1 was independently associated with worse outcomes and steeper decline in kidney function (adjusted hazard ratio for primary outcome of 1.95 [95% CI, 1.53–2.50] for T3 and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.06–1.75] for T2; both versus T1; estimated glomerular filtration rate slope: T3, –3.19 [95% CI, –3.66 to –2.72] mL/min/1.73 m2/y, T2, –2.08 [95% CI, –2.52 to –1.63] and T1 –2.35 [95% CI, –2.79 to –1.91]; P=0.002). The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of baseline ET-1, and the placebo-corrected decrease in ET-1 with dapagliflozin was 0.13 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.25–0.01; P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline ET-1 concentration was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes and more rapid decline in kidney function. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of ET-1 concentrations measured, and treatment with dapagliflozin led to a small decrease in serum ET-1 concentration. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124

Dapagliflozin versus metolazone in heart failure resistant to loop diuretics

Background and Aims: To examine the decongestive effect of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin compared to the thiazide-like diuretic metolazone in patients hospitalized for heart failure and resistant to treatment with intravenous furosemide. Methods: A multi-centre, open-label, randomized, active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5-10 mg once daily for a 3-day treatment period, with follow-up for primary and secondary endpoints until day 5 (96 hours). The primary endpoint was diuretic effect, assessed by change in weight (kg). Secondary endpoints included change in pulmonary congestion (lung ultrasound), loop diuretic efficiency (weight change per 40 mg of furosemide), and a volume assessment score. Results: 61 patients were randomized. The mean (±standard deviation) cumulative dose of furosemide at 96 hours was 976 (±492) mg in the dapagliflozin group and 704 (±428) mg in patients assigned to metolazone. The mean (±standard deviation) decrease in weight at 96 hours was 3.0 (2.5) kg with dapagliflozin compared to 3.6 (2.0) kg with metolazone [mean difference 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12,1.41 kg; p=0.11]. Loop diuretic efficiency was less with dapagliflozin than with metolazone [mean 0.15 (0.12) versus 0.25 (0.19); difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.17,0.01 kg; p=0.10]. Changes in pulmonary congestion and volume assessment score were similar between treatments. Decreases in plasma sodium and potassium and increases in urea and creatinine were smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone. Serious adverse events were similar between treatments. Conclusion: In patients with heart failure and loop diuretic resistance, dapagliflozin was not more effective at relieving congestion than metolazone. Patients assigned to dapagliflozin received a larger cumulative dose of furosemide but experienced less biochemical upset than those assigned to metolazone. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04860011

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Interventions for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for hip fracture surgery

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of pharmacological or mechanical interventions, or both combined, for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in individuals undergoing hip fracture surgery

Effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in EMPHASIS-HF and RALES

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) individually cause significant morbidity and mortality. Their coexistence is associated with even worse outcomes, partly due to suboptimal heart failure therapy, especially underutilisation of beta-blockers. Our aim was to investigate outcomes in HFrEF patients with and without COPD, and the effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) on outcomes. Methods and results: We studied the effect of MRA therapy in a post-hoc pooled analysis of 4397 HFrEF patients in the RALES and EMPHASIS-HF trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death. A total of 625 (14.2%) of the 4397 patients had COPD. Patients with COPD were older, more often male, and smokers, but less frequently treated with a beta-blocker. In patients with COPD, event rates (per 100 person-years) for the primary endpoint and for all-cause mortality were 25.2 (95% confidence interval 22.1–28.7) and 17.2 (14.9–19.9), respectively, compared with 19.9 (18.8–21.1) and 12.8 (12.0–13.7) in participants without COPD. The risks of all-cause hospitalisation and sudden death were also higher in patients with COPD. The benefit of MRA, compared with placebo, was consistent in patients with or without COPD for all outcomes, e.g. hazard ratio for the primary outcome 0.66 (0.50–0.85) for COPD and 0.65 (0.58–0.73) for no COPD (interaction p = 0.93). MRA-induced hyperkalaemia was less frequent in patients with COPD. Conclusions: In RALES and EMPHASIS-HF, one-in-seven patients with HFrEF had coexisting COPD. HFrEF patients with COPD had worse outcomes than those without. The benefits of MRAs were consistent, regardless of COPD status

Endothelin-1, Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction, and Effects of Dapagliflozin:Findings From DAPA-HF

Background: ET-1 (endothelin-1) is implicated in the pathophysiology of heart failure and renal disease. Its prognostic importance and relationship with kidney function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving contemporary treatment are uncertain. We investigated these and the efficacy of dapagliflozin according to ET-1 level in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure). Methods: We investigated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure), change in kidney function, and the effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline ET-1 concentration, adjusting in Cox models for other recognized prognostic variables in heart failure including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on ET-1 level. Results: Overall, 3048 participants had baseline ET-1 measurements: tertile 1 (T1; ≤3.28 pg/mL; n=1016); T2 (&gt;3.28-4.41 pg/mL; n=1022); and T3 (&gt;4.41 pg/mL; n=1010). Patients with higher ET-1 were more likely male, more likely obese, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, worse functional status, and higher NT-proBNP and hs-TnT (high-sensitivity troponin-T). In the adjusted Cox models, higher baseline ET-1 was independently associated with worse outcomes and steeper decline in kidney function (adjusted hazard ratio for primary outcome of 1.95 [95% CI, 1.53-2.50] for T3 and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.06-1.75] for T2; both versus T1; estimated glomerular filtration rate slope: T3, -3.19 [95% CI, -3.66 to -2.72] mL/min per 1.73 m2per y, T2, -2.08 [95% CI, -2.52 to -1.63] and T1 -2.35 [95% CI, -2.79 to -1.91]; P=0.002). The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of baseline ET-1, and the placebo-corrected decrease in ET-1 with dapagliflozin was 0.13 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.25-0.01; P=0.029). Conclusions: Higher baseline ET-1 concentration was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes and more rapid decline in kidney function. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of ET-1 concentrations measured, and treatment with dapagliflozin led to a small decrease in serum ET-1 concentration.</p