Search

Importance: Greater splanchnic nerve ablation may improve hemodynamics in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Objective: To explore the feasibility and safety of endovascular right-sided splanchnic nerve ablation for volume management (SAVM)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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., Intervention: SAVM vs sham control procedure., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 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., Results: A 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 Relevance: Results 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04592445.

Importance: Although the results of A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure (REDUCE LAP-HF II) trial were neutral overall, atrial shunt therapy demonstrated potential efficacy in responders (no latent pulmonary vascular disease and no cardiac rhythm management device). Post hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of shunt vs sham stratified by responder status., Objective: To evaluate the effect of atrial shunt vs sham control on cardiac structure/function in the overall study and stratified by responder status., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a sham-controlled randomized clinical trial of an atrial shunt device in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)/HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Trial participants with evaluable echocardiography scans were recruited from 89 international medical centers. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to January 2024., Interventions: Atrial shunt device or sham control., Main Outcome Measures: Changes in echocardiographic measures from baseline to 1, 6, 12, and 24 months after index procedure., Results: The modified intention-to-treat analysis of the REDUCE LAP-HF II trial included 621 randomized patients (median [IQR] age, 72.0 [66.0-77.0] years; 382 female [61.5%]; shunt arm, 309 [49.8%]; sham control arm, 312 [50.2%]). Through 24 months, 212 of 217 patients (98%) in the shunt arm with evaluable echocardiograms had patent shunts. In the overall trial population, the shunt reduced left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (mean difference, -5.65 mL; P <.001), left atrial (LA) minimal volume (mean difference, -2.8 mL; P =.01), and improved LV systolic tissue Doppler velocity (mean difference, 0.69 cm/s; P <.001) and LA emptying fraction (mean difference, 1.88 percentage units; P =.02) compared with sham. Shunt treatment also increased right ventricular (RV; mean difference, 9.58 mL; P <.001) and right atrial (RA; mean difference, 9.71 mL; P <.001) volumes but had no effect on RV systolic function, pulmonary artery pressure, or RA pressure compared with sham. In the shunt arm, responders had smaller increases in RV end-diastolic volume (mean difference, 5.71 mL vs 15.18 mL; interaction P =.01), RV end-systolic volume (mean difference, 1.58 mL vs 7.89 mL; interaction P =.002), and RV/LV ratio (mean difference, 0.07 vs 0.20; interaction P <.001) and larger increases in transmitral A wave velocity (mean difference, 5.08 cm/s vs -1.97 cm/s; interaction P =.02) compared with nonresponders randomized to the shunt, suggesting greater ability to accommodate shunted blood through the pulmonary circulation enabling LA unloading., Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of the REDUCE LAP-HF II trial, over 2 years of follow-up, atrial shunting led to reverse remodeling of left-sided chambers and increases in volume of right-sided chambers consistent with the shunt flow but no change in RV systolic function compared with sham. Changes in cardiac structure/function were more favorable in responders compared with nonresponders treated with the shunt, supporting the previously identified responder group hypothesis and mechanism, although further evaluation with longer follow-up is needed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03088033.

Importance: In patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) equal to or greater than 40%, a transcatheter interatrial shunt device (IASD; Corvia Medical) reduces exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and is safe compared with sham control treatment at 1 month of follow-up. The longer-term safety and patency of the IASD has not yet been demonstrated in the setting of a randomized clinical trial (RCT)., Objective: To evaluate the 1-year safety and clinical outcomes of the IASD compared with a sham control treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, 1-to-1 sham-controlled multicenter RCT of IASD implantation vs a sham procedure (femoral venous access and imaging of the interatrial septum without IASD) was conducted in 22 centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia on patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or ambulatory class IV HF, LVEF equal to or greater than 40%, exercise PCWP equal to or greater than 25 mm Hg, and PCWP-right atrial pressure gradient equal to or greater than 5 mm Hg., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety was assessed by major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, or renal events (MACCRE). Exploratory outcomes evaluated at 1 year were hospitalizations for HF, NYHA class, quality of life, a 6-minute walk test, and device patency., Results: After 1 year, shunts were patent in all IASD-treated patients; MACCRE did not differ significantly in the IASD arm (2 of 21 [9.5%]) vs the control arm (5 of 22 [22.7%]; P = .41), and no strokes occurred. The yearly rate of hospitalizations for HF was 0.22 in the IASD arm and 0.63 in the control arm (P = .06). Median improvement in NYHA class was 1 class in the IASD arm (IQR, -1 to 0) vs 0 in the control arm (IQR, -1 to 0; P = .08). Quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance were similar in both groups. At 6 months, there was an increase in right ventricular size in the IASD arm (mean [SD], 7.9 [8.0] mL/m2) vs the control arm (-1.8 [9.6] mL/m2; P = .002), consistent with left-to-right shunting through the device; no further increase occurred in the IASD arm at 12 months., Conclusions and Relevance: The REDUCE LAP-HF I phase 2, sham-controlled RCT confirms the longer-term patency of the IASD. Through 1 year of follow-up, IASD treatment appears safe, with no significant differences in MACCRE in patients receiving IASD compared with those who received sham control treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02600234.

Importance: US hospitals receive financial penalties for excess risk-standardized 30-day readmissions and mortality in Medicare patients. Under current policy, readmission prevention is incentivized over 10-fold more than mortality reduction., Objective: To determine how penalties for US hospitals would change if policy equally weighted 30-day readmissions and mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: Publicly available hospital-level data for fiscal year 2014 was obtained, including excess readmission ratio (ERR; risk-standardized predicted over expected 30-day readmissions) and 30-day mortality rates for heart failure, pneumonia, and acute myocardial infarction, as well as readmission penalties (as percent of Medicare Diagnosis Group payments). An excess mortality ratio (EMR) was calculated by dividing the risk-standardized predicted mortality by the national average mortality. Case-weighted aggregate ERR (ERRAGG) and EMR (EMRAGG) were calculated, and an excess combined outcome ratio (ECORAGG) was created by averaging ERRAGG and EMRAGG. We examined associations between readmission penalties, ERRAGG, EMRAGG, and ECORAGG. Analysis of variance was used to compare readmission penalties in hospitals with concordant (both ratios >1 or <1) and discordant performance by ERRAGG and ECORAGG., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome investigated was the association between readmission penalties and the calculated excess combined outcome ratio (ECORAGG)., Results: In 1963 US hospitals with complete data, readmission penalties closely tracked excess readmissions (r = 0.81; P < .001), but were minimally and inversely related with excess mortality (r = -0.12; P < .001) and only modestly correlated with excess combined readmission and mortality (r = 0.36; P < .001). Using hospitals with concordant ERRAGG and ECORAGG as the reference group, 17% of hospitals had an ECORAGG ratio less than 1 (ie, superior combined mortality/readmission outcome) with an ERRAGG ratio greater than 1, and received higher mean (SD) readmission penalties (0.41% [0.28%] vs 0.29% [0.37%]; P < .001); 16% of US hospitals had an ECORAGG ratio of greater than 1 (ie, inferior combined mortality/readmission outcome) with an ERRAGG ratio less than 1, and received minimal mean (SD) readmission penalties (0.08% [0.12%]; P < .001 for comparison with reference)., Conclusions and Relevance: In fiscal year 2014, financial penalties for one-third of US hospitals would have been substantially altered if 30-day readmission and mortality were considered equally important. Under most circumstances, patients would rather avoid death than rehospitalization. Current Medicare financial penalties do not meet the goals of aligning incentives and fairly reimbursing hospitals for patient-centered outcomes.