Ambulatory Risk Stratification for Worsening Heart Failure in Patients with Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Diagnostic Parameters Available in Implantable Cardiac Monitors

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory risk stratification for worsening heart failure (HF) using diagnostics measured by insertable cardiac monitors (ICM) may depend on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We evaluated risk stratification performance in patients with reduced versus preserved LVEF.

METHODS

ICM patients with a history of HF events (HFEs) were included from the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset merged with ICM device-collected data during 2007-2021. ICM measures nighttime heart rate (NHR), heart rate variability (HRV), atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, rate during AF, and activity duration (ACT) daily. Each diagnostic was categorized into high, medium, or low risk using previously defined features. HFEs were HF-related inpatient, observation unit, or emergency department stays with IV diuresis administration. Patients were divided into two cohorts: LVEF ≤ 40% and LVEF > 40%. A marginal Cox proportional hazards model compared HFEs for different risk groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1020 ICM patients with 18,383 follow-up months and 301 months with HFEs (1.6%) were included. Monthly evaluations with a high risk were 2.3, 4.2, 5.0, and 4.5 times (p < 0.001 for all) more likely to have HFEs in the next 30 days compared to those with a low risk for AF, ACT, NHR, and HRV, respectively. HFE rates were higher for patients with LVEF > 40% compared to LVEF ≤ 40% (2.0% vs. 1.3%), and the relative risk between high-risk and low-risk for each diagnostic parameter was higher for patients with LVEF ≤ 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostics measured by ICM identified patients at risk for impending HFEs. Patients with preserved LVEF showed a higher absolute risk, and the relative risk between risk groups was higher in patients with reduced LVEF.

Value of intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy among patients with tandem lesions and emergent carotid artery stenting: A subgroup analysis of the SWIFT DIRECT trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The value of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in eligible tandem lesion patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) is unknown. We investigated treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only in tandem lesion patients. Additional analyses were performed for patients undergoing emergent internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting.

METHODS

SWIFT DIRECT randomized IVT-eligible patients to either EVT + IVT or EVT-only. Primary outcome was 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) after the index event. Secondary endpoints were reperfusion success, 24 h intracranial hemorrhage rate, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Interaction models were fitted for all predefined outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 included patients, 63 (15.4%) had a tandem lesion and 33 (52.4%) received IVT. In patients with tandem lesions, 20 had undergone emergent ICA stenting (EVT + IVT: 9/33, 27.3%; EVT: 11/30, 36.7%). Tandem lesion did not show treatment effect modification of IVT on rates of functional independence (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 63.6% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 65.6% vs. 58.2%; p for interaction = 0.77). IVT also did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage  among tandem lesion patients (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 34.4% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 33.5% vs. 26.3%; p for interaction = 0.15). No heterogeneity was noted for other endpoints (p for interaction > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

No treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only was observed among tandem lesion patients. Administering IVT in patients with anticipated emergent ICA stenting seems safe, and the latter should not be a factor to consider when deciding to administer IVT before EVT.

Leadless vs. transvenous single-chamber ventricular pacing in the Micra CED study: 2-year follow-up

AIMS

Clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the Micra leadless VVI pacemaker; however, longer-term outcomes in a large, real-world population with a contemporaneous comparison to transvenous VVI pacemakers have not been examined. We compared reinterventions, chronic complications, and all-cause mortality at 2 years between leadless VVI and transvenous VVI implanted patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Micra Coverage with Evidence Development study is a continuously enrolling, observational, cohort study of leadless VVI pacemakers in the US Medicare fee-for-service population. Patients implanted with a leadless VVI pacemaker between March 9, 2017, and December 31, 2018, were identified using Medicare claims data linked to manufacturer device registration data (n = 6219). All transvenous VVI patients from facilities with leadless VVI implants during the study period were obtained directly from Medicare claims (n = 10 212). Cox models were used to compare 2-year outcomes between groups. Compared to transvenous VVI, patients with leadless VVI had more end-stage renal disease (12.0% vs. 2.3%) and a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.1 vs. 4.6). Leadless VVI patients had significantly fewer reinterventions [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.85, P = 0.003] and chronic complications (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.81, P < 0.0001) compared with transvenous VVI patients. Adjusted all-cause mortality at 2 years was not different between the two groups (adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.04, P = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

In a real-world study of US Medicare patients, the Micra leadless VVI pacemaker was associated with a 38% lower adjusted rate of reinterventions and a 31% lower adjusted rate of chronic complications compared with transvenous VVI pacing. There was no difference in adjusted all-cause mortality at 2 years.