The Effect of Ventricular Assist Devices on Post-Transplant Mortality An Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Thoracic Registry

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the relationship between pre-transplant ventricular assist device (VAD) support and mortality after heart transplantation.BackgroundIncreasingly, VADs are being used to bridge patients to heart transplantation. The effect of these devices on post-transplant mortality is unclear.MethodsPatients 18 years or older who underwent first-time, single-organ heart transplantation in the U.S. between 1995 and 2004 were included in the analyses. This study compared 1,433 patients bridged with intracorporeal and 448 patients bridged with extracorporeal VADs with 9,455 United Network for Organ Sharing status 1 patients not bridged with a VAD with respect to post-transplant mortality. Because the proportional hazards assumption was not met, hazard ratios (HRs) for different time periods were estimated.ResultsIntracorporeal VADs were associated with an HR of 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.43; p = 0.03) for mortality in the first 6 months after transplant and an HR of 1.99 (95% CI: 1.44 to 2.75; p < 0.0001) beyond 5 years. Between 6 months and 5 years, the HRs were not significantly different from 1. Extracorporeal VADs were associated with an HR of 1.91 (95% CI: 1.53 to 2.37; p < 0.0001) for mortality in the first 6 months and an HR of 2.93 (95% CI: 1.19 to 7.25; p = 0.02) beyond 5 years. The HRs were not significantly different from 1 between 6 months and 5 years, except for an HR of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.91; p = 0.04) between 24 and 36 months.ConclusionsExtracorporeal VADs are associated with higher mortality within 6 months and again beyond 5 years after transplantation. Intracorporeal VADs are associated with a small increase in mortality in the first 6 months and a clinically significant increase in mortality beyond 5 years. These data do not provide evidence supporting VAD implantation in stable United Network for Organ Sharing status I patients awaiting heart transplantation

Relation of serum magnesium levels and postdischarge outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure (from the EVEREST Trial)

Serum magnesium levels may be impacted by neurohormonal activation, renal function, and diuretics. The clinical profile and prognostic significance of serum magnesium level concentration in patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unclear. In this retrospective analysis of the placebo group of the Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan trial, we evaluated 1,982 patients hospitalized for worsening HF with ejection fractions ≤40%. Baseline magnesium levels were measured within 48 hours of admission and analyzed as a continuous variable and in quartiles. The primary end points of all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality or HF rehospitalization were analyzed using Cox regression models. Mean baseline magnesium level was 2.1 ± 0.3 mg/dl. Compared with the lowest quartile, patients in the highest magnesium level quartile were more likely to be older, men, have lower heart rates and blood pressures, have ischemic HF origin, and have higher creatinine and natriuretic peptide levels (all p <0.003). During a median follow-up of 9.9 months, every 1-mg/dl increase in magnesium level was associated with higher ACM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35 to 2.32; p <0.001) and the composite end point (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.81; p = 0.002). However, after adjustment for known baseline covariates, serum magnesium level was no longer an independent predictor of either ACM (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.28; p = 0.7) or the composite end point (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; p = 0.9). In conclusion, despite theoretical concerns, baseline magnesium level was not independently associated with worse outcomes in this cohort. Further research is needed to understand the importance of serum magnesium levels in specific HF patient populations

2009 Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem in the United States. Approximately 5 million patients in this country have HF, and over 550,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the primary reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year. From 1990 to 1999, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 810,000 to over 1 million for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 2.4 to 3.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. In 2001, nearly 53 000 patients died of HF as a primary cause. The number of HF deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment, in part because of increasing numbers of patients with HF due to better treatment and “salvage” of patients with acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) earlier in life. Heart failure is primarily a condition of the elderly, and thus the widely recognized “aging of the population” also contributes to the increasing incidence of HF. The incidence of HF approaches 10 per 1000 population after age 65, and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old. Heart failure is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group (i.e., hospital discharge diagnosis), and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis. The total estimated direct and indirect costs for HF in 2005 were approximately $27.9 billion. In the United States, approximately$2.9 billion annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF

Comparison of symptomatic and functional responses to vagus nerve stimulation in ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF

AIMS: Clinical studies of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have had mixed results to date. We sought to compare VNS delivery and associated changes in symptoms and function in autonomic regulation therapy via left or right cervical vagus nerve stimulation in patients with chronic heart failure (ANTHEM-HF), increase of vagal tone in heart failure (INOVATE-HF), and neural cardiac therapy for heart failure (NECTAR-HF) for hypothesis generation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data from the public domain for differences in proportions using Pearson\u27s chi-square test, differences in mean values using Student\u27s unpaired t-test, and differences in changes of mean values using two-sample t-tests. Guideline-directed medical therapy recommendations were similar across studies. Fewer patients were in New York Heart Association 3, and baseline heart rate (HR) was higher in ANTHEM-HF. In INOVATE-HF, VNS was aimed at peripheral neural targets, using closed-loop delivery that required synchronization of VNS to R-wave sensing by an intracardiac lead. Pulse frequency was low (1-2 Hz) because of a timing schedule allowing ≤3 pulses of VNS following at most 25% of detected R waves. NECTAR-HF and ANTHEM-HF used open-loop VNS delivery (i.e. independent of any external signal) aimed at both central and peripheral targets. In NECTAR-HF, VNS delivery at 20 Hz caused off-target effects that limited VNS up-titration in a majority of patients. In ANTHEM-HF, VNS delivery at 10 Hz allowed up-titration until changes in HR dynamics were confirmed. Six months after VNS titration, significant improvements in both HR and HR variability occurred only in ANTHEM-HF. When ANTHEM-HF and NECTAR-HF were compared, greater improvements from baseline were observed in ANTHEM-HF in standard deviation in normal-to-normal R-R intervals (94 ± 26 to 111 ± 50 vs. 146 ± 48 to 130 ± 52 ms; P \u3c 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (32 ± 7 to 37 ± 0.4 vs. 31 ± 6 to 33 ± 6; P \u3c 0.05), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure mean score (40 ± 14 to 21 ± 10 vs. 44 ± 22 to 36 ± 21; P \u3c 0.002). When compared with INOVATE-HF, greater improvement in 6-min walk distance was observed in ANTHEM-HF (287 ± 66 to 346 ± 78 vs. 304 ± 111 to 334 ± 111 m; P \u3c 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, differences in patient demographics were seen and may have caused the differential responses in symptoms and function observed in association with VNS. Major differences in technology platforms, neural targets, VNS delivery, and HR and HR variability responses could have also potentially played a very important role. Further study is underway in a randomized controlled trial with these considerations in mind

Advances in our clinical understanding of autonomic regulation therapy using vagal nerve stimulation in patients living with heart failure

The ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF clinical studies of autonomic regulation therapy (ART) using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) systems have collectively provided dose-ranging information enabling the development of several working hypotheses on how stimulation frequency can be utilized during VNS for tolerability and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients living with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Changes in heart rate dynamics, comprising reduced heart rate (HR) and increased HR variability, are a biomarker of autonomic nerve system engagement and cardiac control, and appear to be sensitive to VNS that is delivered using a stimulation frequency that is similar to the natural operating frequency of the vagus nerve. Among prior studies, the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study has provided the clearest evidence of autonomic engagement with VNS that was delivered using a stimulation frequency that was within the operating range of the vagus nerve. Achieving autonomic engagement was accompanied by improvement from baseline in six-minute walk duration (6MWD), health-related quality of life, and left ventricular EF (LVEF), over and above those achieved by concomitant guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) administered to counteract harmful neurohormonal activation, with relative freedom from deleterious effects. Autonomic engagement and positive directional changes have persisted over time, and an exploratory analysis suggests that improvement in autonomic tone, symptoms, and physical capacity may be independent of baseline NT-proBNP values. Based upon these encouraging observations, prospective, randomized controlled trials examining the effects on symptoms and cardiac function as well as natural history have been warranted. A multi-national, large-scale, randomized, controlled trial is well underway to determine the outcomes associated with ART using autonomic nervous system engagement as a guide for VNS delivery

Dosing of losartan in men vs. women with HFrEF: the HEAAL trial

Background: In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), guidelines recommend up-titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) to the maximum tolerated dose. However, some studies suggest that women might need lower doses of ACEi/ARBs than men to achieve similar treatment benefit. Methods: The HEAAL trial compared low vs. high dose of losartan. We reassessed the efficacy and safety of high- vs. low-dose in men vs. women using Cox models and Machine Learning algorithms. Results: The mean age was 66 years and 30% of the patients were women. Men appeared to have benefited more from high-dose than from low-dose losartan, whereas women appeared to have responded similarly to low and high doses: HR (95%CI) comparing high- vs- low-dose losartan for the composite outcome of all-cause death or all-cause hospitalisation was 0.89 (0.81-0.98) in men and 1.10 (0.95-1.28) in women, interaction P=0.018. Female sex clustered along with older age, ischemic HF, NYHA III/IV, and eGFR&lt;60 ml/min. Patients with these features had a poorer response to high-dose losartan. Subgroup analyses supported no benefit from high-dose losartan in patients with poorer kidney function and severe HF symptoms. Conclusions: Compared with men, women might need lower doses of losartan to achieve similar treatment benefit. However, beyond sex, other factors (e.g., kidney function, age, and symptoms) may influence the response to high-dose losartan, suggesting that sex-based subgroup findings may be biased by other confounders

Research priorities in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: report of a Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a myocardial disorder characterized by left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy without dilatation and without apparent cause (ie, it occurs in the absence of severe hypertension, aortic stenosis, or other cardiac or systemic diseases that might cause LV hypertrophy). Numerous excellent reviews and consensus documents provide a wealth of additional background.1–8 HCM is the leading cause of sudden death in young people and leads to significant disability in survivors. It is caused by mutations in genes that encode components of the sarcomere. Cardiomyocyte and cardiac hypertrophy, myocyte disarray, interstitial and replacement fibrosis, and dysplastic intramyocardial arterioles characterize the pathology of HCM. Clinical manifestations include impaired diastolic function, heart failure, tachyarrhythmia (both atrial and ventricular), and sudden death. At present, there is a lack of understanding of how the mutations in genes encoding sarcomere proteins lead to the phenotypes described above. Current therapeutic approaches have focused on the prevention of sudden death, with implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement in high-risk patients. But medical therapies have largely focused on alleviating symptoms of the disease, not on altering its natural history. The present Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute brought together clinical, translational, and basic scientists with the overarching goal of identifying novel strategies to prevent the phenotypic expression of disease. Herein, we identify research initiatives that we hope will lead to novel therapeutic approaches for patients with HCM