Baroreflex activation therapy with the Barostim™ device in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a patient level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains associated with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life (QoL) and significant exercise limitation. Sympatho-vagal imbalance has been shown to predict adverse prognosis and symptoms in HFrEF, yet it has not been specifically targeted by any guideline-recommended device therapy to date. Barostim™, which directly addresses this imbalance, is the first Food and Drug Administration approved neuromodulation technology for HFrEF. We aimed to analyse all randomized trial evidence to evaluate the effect of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) on heart failure symptoms, QoL and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed on all eligible trials that randomized HFrEF patients to BAT + guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (open label). Endpoints included 6-month changes in 6-min hall walk (6MHW) distance, Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) QoL score, NT-proBNP, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in all patients and three subgroups. A total of 554 randomized patients were included. In all patients, BAT provided significant improvement in 6MHW distance of 49 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 64), MLWHF QoL of -13 points (95% CI -17, -10), and 3.4 higher odds of improving at least one NYHA class (95% CI 2.3, 4.9) when comparing from baseline to 6 months. These improvements were similar, or better, in patients who had baseline NT-proBNP <1600 pg/ml, regardless of the cardiac resynchronization therapy indication status. CONCLUSION: An IPD meta-analysis suggests that BAT improves exercise capacity, NYHA class, and QoL in HFrEF patients receiving GDMT. These clinically meaningful improvements were consistent across the range of patients studies. BAT was also associated with an improvement in NT-proBNP in subjects with a lower baseline NT-proBNP.

Health Status After Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: COAPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) led to reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and improved survival in patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) on maximally-tolerated medical therapy. Given the advanced age and comorbidities of these patients, improvement in health status is also an important treatment goal. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the health status outcomes of patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR treated with TMVr versus standard care. METHODS: The COAPT trial randomized patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR to TMVr (n = 302) or standard care (n = 312). Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey. The primary health status endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS; range 0 to 100; higher = better; minimum clinically important difference = 5 points). RESULTS: At baseline, patients had substantially impaired health status (mean KCCQ-OS 52.4 ± 23.0). While health status was unchanged over time in the standard care arm, patients randomized to TMVr demonstrated substantial improvement in the KCCQ-OS at 1 month (mean between-group difference 15.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.3 to 19.5 points), with only slight attenuation of this benefit through 24 months (mean between-group difference 12.8 points; 95% CI: 7.5 to 18.2 points). At 24 months, 36.4% of TMVr patients were alive with a moderately large (≥10-point) improvement versus 16.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001), for a number needed to treat of 5.1 patients (95% CI: 3.6 to 8.7 patients). TMVr patients also reported better generic health status at each timepoint (24-month mean difference in SF-36 summary scores: physical 3.6 points; 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.8 points; mental 3.6 points; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.4 points). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR receiving maximally-tolerated medical therapy, edge-to-edge TMVr resulted in substantial early and sustained health status improvement compared with medical therapy alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Comparison of office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relationship between office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in heart transplant recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 30 adults ≥ 6 months after heart transplantation. Morning seated office BP was measured with the use of an automatic device at 3 outpatient visits. Seated home BP was measured in the morning and evening for 5 consecutive days. Ambulatory BP was measured over 24 hours with the use of a Spacelabs monitor. The strongest correlation was observed between home and 24-hour ambulatory BP (r = 0.79 systolic; r = 0.72 diastolic). Office and home systolic BPs were significantly lower than daytime ambulatory BP (office, -3.7 mm Hg, P = .009; home, -2.6 mm Hg, P = .05). Ambulatory monitoring identified more participants with BP above hypertensive limits than did office or home measurements (63%, 50%, and 13%, respectively; P = .003). Ambulatory monitoring also revealed high BP loads, abnormal nocturnal BP patterns (eg, 30% nondippers), and a high percentage of masked hypertension (37% home, 50% ambulatory). CONCLUSIONS: Office and home BP monitoring are acceptable but may underestimate BP burden in heart transplant recipients. Additional studies are needed to determine which BP method is superior for the management of hypertension and associated outcomes after heart transplantation.