Trials on the effect of cardiac resynchronization on arterial blood pressure in patients with heart failure

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a crossroad from arterial hypertension to heart failure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of blood pressure and volume homeostasis, promoting critical structural changes in every component of the cardiovascular system, including the heart and blood vessels. Consequently, the RAAS is a crucial therapeutic target for several chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system, spanning from arterial hypertension (AH) to heart failure (HF). AH represents a leading risk factor for the development of symptomatic HF, particularly with left ventricle (LV) preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). LV diastolic dysfunction and cardiac remodelling are the first discernible manifestations of heart disease in patients with AH. Typically, AH develops many years before the diagnosis of overt HF, providing a therapeutic target for preventive strategies. Treatment of AH is based on different classes of antihypertensive drugs, which show differences in their capacity to prevent the evolution towards HF. The blockers of the RAAS are effective drugs to treat AH and prevent HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the evidence of the potential benefits in patients with HFpEF remains limited. In this review, the authors summarise data from several clinical trials of HFpEF and HFrEF, focusing on the mechanisms leading the transition from AH to HF and late complications.

Non-invasive hemodynamic determination of patient-specific optimal pacing mode in cardiac resynchronization therapy

PURPOSE

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices have multiple programmable pacing parameters. The purpose of this study was to determine the best pacing mode, i.e., associated with the greatest acute hemodynamic response, in each patient.

METHODS

Patients in sinus rhythm and intact atrioventricular conduction were included within 3 months of implantation of devices featuring SyncAV and multipoint pacing (MPP) algorithms. The effect of nominal biventricular pacing using the latest activated electrode (BiV-Late), optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD), nominal and optimized SyncAV, and anatomical MPP was determined by non-invasive measurement of systolic blood pressure (SBP). CRT response was defined as SBP increase > 10% relative to baseline.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) were included. BiV-Late increased SBP compared to intrinsic rhythm (128 ± 21 mmHg vs. 121 ± 22 mmHg, p = 0.0002). The best pacing mode further increased SBP to 140 ± 19 mmHg (p < 0.0001 vs. BiV-Late). The proportion of CRT responders increased from 40% with BiV-Late to 80% with the best pacing mode (p = 0.0005). Compared to BiV-Late, optimized AVD and optimized SyncAV increased SBP (to 134 ± 21 mmHg, p = 0.004, and 133 ± 20 mmHg, p = 0.0003, respectively), but nominal SyncAV and MPP did not. The best pacing mode was variable between patients and was different from nominal BiV-Late in 28 (93%) patients. Optimized AVD was the most frequent best mode, in 14 (47%) patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with LBBB, the best pacing mode was patient-specific and doubled the magnitude of acute hemodynamic response and the proportion of acute CRT responders compared to nominal BiV-Late pacing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03779802.

The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on arterial stiffness and central hemodynamic parameters

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a device-based method of treatment which decreases morbidity and mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study was aimed to investigate the effects of CRT on hemodynamic and arterial stiffness parameters evaluated by noninvasive method, and determine whether there is a correlation between the changes after CRT in these parameters and the clinical response to CRT or not.

METHODS

The study included 46 patients with HFrEF who were planned to undergo CRT implantation. Before the CRT implantation, clinical and demographic data were recorded from all patients. Hemodynamic and arterial stiffness parameters were measured oscillometrically by an arteriograph before CRT implantation. The patients were re-evaluated minimum three months after CRT; the above-mentioned parameters were measured again and compared to the pre-CRT period.

RESULTS

Compared to the period before CRT, mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) (116.8 ± 19.1 mm Hg vs 127.7 ± 20.9 mm Hg, P = .005), central SBP (cSBP) (106.2 ± 17.3 mm Hg vs 116.8 ± 18.7 mm Hg, P = .015), cardiac output (CO) (4.6 ± 0.8 lt/min vs 5.1 ± 0.8 lt/min, P = .002), stroke volume (65.6 ± 16.3 mL vs 72.0 ± 14.9 mL), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) (10 ± 1.6 m/sec vs 10.4 ± 1.8 m/sec, P = .004) increased significantly in post-CRT period. In addition, the same parameters were significantly increased post-CRT period in patients with clinical response. However, there was not any similar increase in nonresponder patients.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that SBP, CO, and PWV increased significantly after CRT. The modest increases in these parameters were observed to be associated with positive clinical outcomes.

Prognostic Usefulness of Systolic Blood Pressure One-Year Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (from MADIT-CRT)

Low systolic blood pressure (SBP) is associated with increased mortality and heart failure in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Data on the relation between SBP measured following cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation and subsequent clinical events are limited. We hypothesized that assessment of systolic blood pressure at 12 months after cardiac resynchronization therapy can be used to identify patients with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The study population comprised 1000 patients who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation in MADIT-CRT. Outcomes were compared between patients with low (<110 mm Hg) and preserved SBP (≥110 mm Hg) at 1 year. At 1 year following cardiac resynchronization therapy, 800 patients (80%) had preserved systolic blood pressure. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the rate of heart failure or death during subsequent follow-up was significantly higher among patients with low SBP as compared with a preserved SBP at 12 months (2-year rates: 20% vs 12%, respectively; log-rank p value = 0.009 for the overall difference during follow-up). Consistently, multivariate analysis showed that patients with preserved SBP at 1 year had a 29% lower risk of HF or death when compared with the low SBP group (p = 0.024). The association between SBP measured following cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation and subsequent clinical events was more pronounced among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p value for SBP-by-HF etiology interaction = 0.034). In conclusion, assessment of SBP following cardiac resynchronization therapy can be used for improved long-term risk stratification in this population.

Hypertension and Heart Failure

Hypertensive heart disease represents a spectrum of illnesses from uncontrolled hypertension to heart failure. The authors discuss the natural history and pathogenesis of heart failure owing to hypertensive heart disease, reviewing the important role of left ventricular hypertrophy as the inciting process leading to diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. They describe the various mechanisms by which a subset of patients ultimately develops systolic heart failure. They discuss management strategies for hypertensive heart disease at all stages of the disease process. Treatment in the initial stages before onset of heart failure may result in regression of disease.

Inverse Relationship of Blood Pressure to Long-Term Outcomes and Benefit of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Mild Heart Failure

Background—

Previous studies have shown that low blood pressure is associated with increased mortality and heart failure (HF) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to increase systolic blood pressure (SBP). Therefore, we hypothesized that treatment with CRT would provide incremental benefit in patients with lower SBP values.

Methods and Results—

The independent contribution of SBP to outcome was analyzed in 1267 patients with left bundle brunch block enrolled in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT). SBP was assessed as continuous measures and further categorized into approximate quintiles. The risk of long-term HF or death and CRT with defibrillator versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator benefit was assessed in multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. Multivariate analysis showed that in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator arm, each 10-mm Hg decrement of SBP was independently associated with a significant 21% ( P <0.001) increased risk for HF or death, and patients with lower quintile SBP (<110 mm Hg) experienced a corresponding >2-fold risk-increase. CRT with defibrillator provided the greatest HF or mortality risk reduction in patients with SBP<110 mm Hg hazard ratio of 0.34, P <0.001, when compared with hazard ratio of 0.52, P <0.001, in those with 110>SBP≥136 mm Hg and hazard ratio of 0.94, P =0.808, with SBP>136 mm Hg ( P for trend=0.001).

Conclusions—

In patients with mild HF, prolonged QRS, and left bundle brunch block, low SBP is related to higher risk of mortality or HF with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy alone. Treatment with CRT is associated with incremental clinical benefits in patients with lower baseline SBP values.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00180271.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies that used two of the most common causal inference methods, instrumental variables and marginal structural models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are very similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and arterial blood pressure: a bonus for hemodynamic improvement

The association between low blood pressure and prognosis in patients with heart failure has been controversial, with some reports suggesting an increased mortality for patients with the lowest blood pressures. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has become an established major therapeutic option for patients with heart failure and left ventricular dyssynchrony. It has been shown to improve functional capacity, left ventricular systolic function and survival in patients with heart failure. However, it is not known if this improvement in systolic function translates into an increase in arterial blood pressure. Here we discuss a recent publication evaluating the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure. This study shows that cardiac resynchronization therapy is associated with a modest increase in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure in patients with heart failure. These findings will be summarized and discussed with readily available clinical data.