Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial)

AIMS

Early start and patient profile-oriented heart failure (HF) management has been recommended. In this post hoc analysis from the SHIFT trial, we analysed the treatment effects of ivabradine in HF patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 110 mmHg, resting heart rate (RHR) ≥ 75 b.p.m., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III/IV, and their combination.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SHIFT trial enrolled 6505 patients (LVEF ≤ 35% and RHR ≥ 70 b.p.m.), randomized to ivabradine or placebo on the background of guideline-defined standard care. Compared with placebo, ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) in patients with SBP < 110 and ≥110 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P interaction = 0.34], LVEF ≤ 25% and >25% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.90, P interaction = 0.53), and NYHA III-IV and II (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94 vs. HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, P interaction = 0.79). The effect was more pronounced in patients with RHR ≥ 75 compared with <75 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85 vs. HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-0.1.16, P interaction = 0.02). When combining these profiling parameters, treatment with ivabradine was also associated with risk reductions comparable with patients with low-risk profiles for the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 29%), cardiovascular death (11%), HF death (49%), and HF hospitalization (38%; all P values for interaction: 0.40). No safety concerns were observed between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that RHR reduction with ivabradine is effective and improves clinical outcomes in HF patients across various risk indicators such as low SBP, high RHR, low LVEF, and high NYHA class to a similar extent and without safety concern.

Evaluation of Serum Urate Levels and the Clinical Manifestation of Gout with Cardiovascular Mortality from the CARES Trial

Objective

To investigate whether serum urate levels, number of gout flares, and tophi burden are related to death from cardiovascular (CV) causes after treatment with febuxostat or allopurinol in patients with gout from the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat or Allopurinol in Patients With Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) trial.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive febuxostat (40 mg or 80 mg once daily, according to serum urate levels at week 2) or allopurinol titrated in 100‐mg increments from 200–400 mg or 300–600 mg (with dose determined according to kidney function). Changes from baseline in serum urate level, gout flares, and tophus resolution were key exploratory efficacy parameters in the overall population and in subgroups of patients who died and those who did not die from a CV‐related cause. The latter subgroup included patients who died due to non‐CV causes and those who did not die due to any cause.

Results

Patients received treatment with febuxostat (n = 3,098) or allopurinol (n = 3,092) for a median follow‐up period of 32 months (for a maximum of 85 months). In the overall population, mean serum urate levels were lower in those receiving febuxostat compared with those receiving allopurinol at most study visits. There were no associations between serum urate levels and death from CV causes with febuxostat. The number of gout flares requiring treatment was higher within 1 year of treatment with febuxostat compared with allopurinol (mean incidence of gout flares per patient‐years of exposure 1.33 versus 1.20), but was comparable thereafter and decreased overall throughout the study period (mean incidence of gout flares per patient‐years of exposure 0.35 versus 0.34 after 1 year of treatment; overall mean incidence 0.68 versus 0.63) irrespective of whether the patient died from a CV‐related cause. Overall, 20.8% of patients had ≥1 tophus at baseline; tophus resolution rates were similar between treatment groups, with cumulative resolution rates of >50%.

Conclusion

In the CARES trial, febuxostat and allopurinol (≤600 mg doses) had comparable efficacy in patients with gout and CV disease, and there was no evidence of a relationship between death from CV causes and serum urate levels, number of gout flares, or tophus resolution among the patients receiving febuxostat.

Reduced left ventricular contractility, increased diastolic operant stiffness and high energetic expenditure in patients with severe aortic regurgitation without indication for surgery

OBJECTIVES

Recent mortality studies showed worse prognosis in patients (ARNS) with severe aortic regurgitation and preserved ejection fraction (EF) not fulfilling the criteria of current guidelines for surgery. The aim of our study was to analyse left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function and mechanical energetics to find haemodynamic explanations for the reduced prognosis of these patients and to seek a new concept for surgery.

METHODS

Global longitudinal strain (GLS) and echo-based single-beat pressure-volume analyses were performed in patients with ARNS (LV end-diastolic diameter <70 mm, EF >50%, GLS > -19% n = 41), with indication for surgery (ARS; n = 19) and in mild hypertensive controls (C; n = 20). Additionally, end-systolic elastance (LV contractility), stroke work and total energy (pressure-volume area) were calculated.

RESULTS

ARNS demonstrated significantly depressed LV contractility versus C: end-systolic elastance (1.58 ± 0.7 vs 2.54 ± 0.8 mmHg/ml; P < 0.001), despite identical EF (EF: 59 ± 6% vs 59 ± 7%). Accordingly, GLS was decreased [-15.7 ± 2.7% (n = 31) vs -21.2 ± 2.4%; P < 0.001], end-diastolic volume (236 ± 90 vs 136 ± 30 ml; P < 0.001) and diastolic operant stiffness were markedly enlarged, as were pressure-volume area and stroke work, indicating waste of energy. The correlation of GLS versus end-systolic elastance was good (r = -0.66; P < 0.001). ARNS and ARS patients demonstrated similar haemodynamic disorders, whereas only GLS was worse in ARS.

CONCLUSIONS

ARNS patients almost matched the ARS patients in their haemodynamic and energetic deterioration, thereby explaining poor prognosis reported in literature. GLS has been shown to be a reliable surrogate for LV contractility, possibly overestimating contractility due to exhausted preload reserve in aortic regurgitation patients. GLS may outperform conventional echo parameters to predict more precisely the timing of surgery.

Comparison of Outcome Adjudication by Investigators and by a Central End Point Committee in Heart Failure Trials

Background:

The usefulness of adjudication by central end point committees (CECs) is poorly assessed in heart failure (HF) trials. We aimed to assess its impact on the outcome of the SHIFT trial (Systolic HF Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial).

Methods:

SHIFT was a randomized placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of ivabradine in 6505 HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. Prespecified end points, reported by investigators (all cardiologists) using specific case report form pages, included all-cause and specific causes of deaths and hospitalizations. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular deaths or hospitalizations for worsening HF. We compared the adjudication of prespecified end points made by investigators and by the CEC.

Results:

Investigators identified 7529 prespecified end points, 6793 of which were confirmed by the CEC: 98.1% of cardiovascular deaths, 88.6% of all hospitalizations, and 84.4% of hospitalizations for worsening HF. These differences had no meaningful impact on the study results; hazard ratio for the primary composite end point: investigators, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76–0.91) versus CEC, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75–0.90), with similar results for each component of the primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.92 versus 0.91 for cardiovascular death and 0.78 versus 0.74 for hospitalization for worsening HF).

Conclusions:

Central adjudication by a CEC in the SHIFT study confirmed most of cardiovascular deaths and worsening HF hospitalizations assessed by cardiologists and did not result in a significant change of the final result as compared to investigator judgment. In this context, the benefits of CEC in blinded HF trials should be reconsidered.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02441218. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN70429960 ; Unique identifier: ISRCTN70429960.

Relationship of Body Mass Index With Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data-STS/ACC TVT Registry

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship of body mass index (BMI) with short- and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The relationship between BMI and baseline characteristics and procedural characteristics was assessed for 31,929 patients who underwent TAVR between November 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015, from the STS/ACC TVT Registry. Registry data on 20,429 patients were linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to assess the association of BMI with 30-day and 1-year mortality using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. The effect of BMI on mortality was also assessed with BMI as a continuous variable. Restricted cubic regression splines were used to model the effect of BMI and to determine appropriate cut points of BMI.

RESULTS

Among 31,929 patients, 806 (2.5%) were underweight (BMI, <18.5 kg/m²), 10,755 (33.7%) had normal weight (BMI, 18.5- 24.9 kg/m²), 10,691 (33.5%) were overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9 kg/m²), 5582 (17.5%) had class I obesity (BMI, 30.0-34.9 kg/m²), 2363 (7.4%) had class II obesity (BMI, 35.0-39.9 kg/m²), and 1732 (5.4%) had class III obesity (BMI, ≥40 kg/m²). Patients in various BMI categories were different in most baseline and procedural characteristics. On multivariable analysis, compared with normal-weight patients, underweight patients had higher mortality at 30 days and at 1 year after TAVR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.78 and HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.69, respectively), whereas overweight patients and those with class I and II obesity had a decreased risk of mortality at 1 year (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95, HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89, and HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98, respectively). For BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, each 1-kg/m² increase was associated with a 2% and 4% decrease in the risk of 30-day and 1-year mortality, respectively; for BMI greater than 30 kg/m², a 1-kg/m² increase was associated with a 3% increased risk of 30-day mortality but not with 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Results of this large registry study evaluating the relationship of BMI and outcomes after TAVR support the existence of an obesity paradox among patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR.

P1421 Patients with severe aortic regurgitation showed systolic dysfunction and increased stroke work despite preserved EF; clues for reconsidering optimal time point of surgery

Background

Current guidelines recommend surgery in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) with clinical symptoms or subnormal ejection fraction (EF). Furthermore, surgery should be considered in patients with severe AR, preserved EF and increased left ventricular diameters (LVEDD &gt;70mm, LVESD &gt;50mm). The aim of the study was to investigate LV systolic function as well as mechanical energetics using non-invasive pressure-volume- and strain analysis in patients with severe AR and preserved EF as well as moderately dilated ventricles (LVEDD &lt;70mm).

Methods and Results

Echocardiographic strain and single beat pressure-volume analyses were performed in patients with severe AR and moderately increased ventricular size (LVEDD &lt; 70mm, EF &gt;50% n = 39) as well as healthy, age-matched controls (n = 20) using echo-derived volume and arm-cuff blood pressure measurements. Load independent parameters of systolic contractile function like end-systolic elastance (Ees) and end-systolic volume at 100mmHg (ESV100) were calculated as well as stroke work ((SW) and total pressure volume area (PVA = SW + potential energy). Patients with AR demonstrated significant depression of systolic function beyond ejection fraction: global longitudinal strain was reduced compared to controls (-16 ±2.5% vs. -21.5 ±2%; p &lt; 0.001). Accordingly load independent parameters of LV contractility like Ees (1.5mmHg/ml ±0.7 vs. 2.25mmHg/ml ±0.7; p &lt; 0.001), ESV100 (65.7ml ±19.4 vs. 42.4ml ±19.8; p &lt; 0.05) were reduced despite comparable ejection fractions (EF: 0.56% ±0.05 vs. 0.60% ±0.07 p = 0,10). End-diastolic volume of AR patients was markedly elevated (236ml ±90 vs. 136ml ±30; p &lt; 0.001), while PVA (20470mmHg x ml ±10400 vs. 11907mmHg x ml ±2877; p &lt; 0.01) and stroke work (13200mmHg x ml ±5700 vs. 7606 mmHG x ml ±2048; p&lt; 0.01) were markedly elevated indicating waste of energy.

Conclusion

Patients with severe AR and moderately enhanced LV showed depressed values of contractility and waste of energy using more advanced parameters of LV systolic function although EF was preserved. The data may demonstrate that surgery is performed too late in many of those patients and may give clues for reconsidering guidelines to meet the optimal time point of surgery.

.

Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m

Aims

Ivabradine has been approved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and elevated heart rate despite guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) to reduce cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalization for worsening HF. The median value of 77 b.p.m. is the lower bound selected for the regulatory approval in Canada, South Africa, and Australia. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) including symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment are considered of major interest in the global plan of care of patients with HF. However, the specific impact of GDMT, and specifically ivabradine, on PRO remains poorly studied. In the subgroup of patients from the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) who had heart rate above the median of 77 b.p.m. (pre‐specified analysis) and for whom the potential for improvement was expected to be larger, we aimed (i) to evaluate the effects of ivabradine on PRO (symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment); (ii) to consolidate the effects of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF; and (iii) to reassess the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling.

Methods and results

Comparisons were made according to therapy, and proportional hazards models (adjusted for baseline beta‐blocker therapy) were used to estimate the association between ivabradine and various outcomes. In SHIFT, n = 3357 (51.6%) patients had a baseline heart rate > 77 b.p.m. After a median follow‐up of 22.9 months (inter‐quartile range 18–28 months), ivabradine on top of GDMT improved symptoms (28% vs. 23% improvement in New York Heart Association functional class, P = 0.0003), quality of life (5.3 vs. 2.2 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, P = 0.005), and global assessment [from both patient (improved in 72.3%) and physician (improved in 61.0%) perspectives] significantly more than did placebo (both P < 0.0001). Ivabradine induced a 25% reduction in the combined endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio 0.75; P < 0.0001), which translates into a number of patients needed to be treated for 1 year of 17. Patients under ivabradine treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in LV dimensions when reassessed at 8 months (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

In patients with chronic HFrEF, sinus rhythm, and a heart rate > 77 b.p.m. while on GDMT, the present analysis brings novel insights into the role of ivabradine in improving the management of HFrEF, particularly with regard to PRO (ISRCTN70429960).

Effect of Left Ventricular Conduction Delay on All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality (from the PRECISION Trial)

The prognosis associated with prolonged intraventricular conduction on electrocardiogram (ECG) remains uncertain. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of narrow versus prolonged intraventricular conduction on ECG stratified by QRS morphology and cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. A post-hoc analysis was performed of the randomized-control PRECISION trial. Patients with centrally adjudicated, nonpaced baseline ECGs were included. QRS duration was classified narrow (≤100 ms) versus prolonged (>100 ms) with additional categorization into left (LBBB) or right (RBBB) bundle branch block or nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). IVCD was subclassified if left ventricular conduction delay (LVCD) was present (L-IVCD) or absent (O-IVCD). The primary outcome was adjudicated all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Of 24,081 patients randomized, 22,067 (92%) were included with follow-up 34 ± 13 months. Study patients were 63 ± 9 years, 64% female, 75% Caucasian, 23% with established CVD. The prevalence of QRS prolongation was 5.6% (1,240): 760 right bundle branch block (3.4%), 313 LBBB (1.4%), and 161 IVCD (0.7%), 95 subclassified L-IVCD (0.4%). After adjustment, LBBB and L-IVCD were similarly associated with increased all-cause (LBBB: 2.3 [1.4 to 3.8], p = 0.001; L-IVCD: 4.0 [2.1 to 7.9], p <0.001) and CV (LBBB: 3.6 [2.0 to 6.5], p <0.001; L-IVCD 3.6 [1.3 to 9.7], p = 0.001) mortality. The presence of LVCD (LBBB or L-IVCD) was associated with all-cause (2.8 [1.8 to 4.2], p <0.001) and CV (3.6 [2.2 to 6.1], p <0.001) mortality exceeding the observed risks of coronary artery disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diabetes. The LVCD hazard persisted across QRS durations (100 to 120 vs >120 ms) and CVD status. In conclusion, LVCD, whether LBBB or L-IVCD, was strongly associated with increased mortality in patients with and at-risk for CVD.

Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Regurgitation: Prediction from Preoperative Contractility Measurement

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive measurement of myocardial contractility (end-systolic wall stress-adjusted change in left ventricular ejection fraction from rest to exercise [ΔLVEF - ΔESS]) predicts heart failure, subnormal LVEFrest, and sudden death in asymptomatic patients with chronic severe aortic regurgitation (AR). Here we assess the relation of preoperative ΔLVEF - ΔESS to survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent AVR for chronic, isolated, pure severe AR (n = 66) were followed for 13.0 ± 6.4 event-free years. Preoperative ΔLVEF - ΔESS (from combined echocardiographic and radionuclide cineangiographic data) enabled cohort stratification into 3 terciles (-1 to -11% [normal or mild] contractility deficit, -12 to -16% [moderate], and ≤-17% [severe], identical with segregation in our earlier study) to relate preoperative contractility to postoperative survival and to age- and gender-matched US census data.

RESULTS

Since AVR, 22 patients died (average annual risk [AAR] for all-cause mortality for the entire co hort = 3.15%). Preoperative ΔLVEF - ΔESS predicted postoperative survival (p = 0.009, log rank test). By contractility terciles, all-cause AARs were 1.44, 2.58, and 6.40%. Survival was lower than among US census comparators (p < 0.02), but the "mild" tercile was indistinguishable from census data (p = ns). By multivariable Cox regression, survival prediction by pre-AVR ΔLVEF - ΔESS was independent of, and superior to, prediction by age at surgery, gender, preoperative functional class, LVEFrest, LVEFexercise, change in LVEFrest to exercise, and LV diastolic or systolic dimensions (p ≤ 0.01, pre-AVR ΔLVEF - ΔESS vs. other covariates).

CONCLUSION

In severe AR, preoperative contractility predicts post-AVR survival and may be prognostically superior to clinical, geometric and performance descriptors, potentially impacting on patient selection for surgery.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial

Aims

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen.

Methods and results

In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively).

Conclusions

In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension.

ClinicalTrials

gov number NCT00346216.

Prognostic implications of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in heart failure patients with narrow QRS complex treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a subanalysis of the randomized EchoCRT trial

Aim

Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) reflects LV systolic function and correlates inversely with the extent of LV myocardial scar and fibrosis. The present subanalysis of the Echocardiography Guided CRT trial investigated the prognostic value of LV GLS in patients with narrow QRS complex.

Methods and results

Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured on the apical 2-, 4- and 3-chamber views using speckle tracking analysis. Measurement of baseline LV GLS was feasible in 755 patients (374 with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ON and 381 with CRT-OFF). The median value of LV GLS in the overall population was 7.9%, interquartile range 6.2-10.1%. After a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months, 95 patients in the CRT-OFF group and 111 in the CRT-ON group reached the combined primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Each 1% absolute unit decrease in LV GLS was independently associated with 11% increase in the risk to reach the primary endpoint (Hazard ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 95% 1.04-1.17, P < 0.001), after adjusting for ischaemic cardiomyopathy and randomization treatment among other clinically relevant variables. When categorizing patients according to quartiles of LV GLS, the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients in the lowest quartile (<6.2%) treated with CRT-ON vs. CRT-OFF (45.6% vs. 28.7%, P = 0.009) whereas, no differences were observed in patients with LV GLS ≥6.2% treated with CRT-OFF vs. CRT-ON (23.7% vs. 24.5%, respectively; P  = 0.62).

Conclusion

Low LV GLS is associated with poor outcome in heart failure patients with QRS width <130 ms, independent of randomization to CRT or not. Importantly, in the group of patients with the lowest LV GLS quartile, CRT may have a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes.

Randomised clinical trial: gastrointestinal events in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib, ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION trial

AIM

To evaluate GI safety of celecoxib compared with 2 nonselective (ns) NSAIDs, as a secondary objective of a large trial examining multiorgan safety.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind controlled trial analysed 24 081 patients. Osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis patients, needing ongoing NSAID treatment, were randomised to receive celecoxib 100-200 mg b.d., ibuprofen 600-800 mg t.d.s. or naproxen 375-500 mg b.d. plus esomeprazole, and low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids if already prescribed. Clinically significant GI events (CSGIE-bleeding, obstruction, perforation events from stomach downwards or symptomatic ulcers) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) were adjudicated blindly.

RESULTS

Mean treatment and follow-up durations were 20.3 and 34.1 months. While on treatment or 30 days after, CSGIE occurred in 0.34%, 0.74% and 0.66% taking celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) celecoxib vs ibuprofen and 0.51 (0.32-0.81, P = 0.004) vs naproxen. There was also less IDA on celecoxib: HR 0.43 (0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) vs ibuprofen; 0.40 (0.25-0.62, P < 0.0001) vs naproxen. Even taken with low-dose aspirin, fewer CSGIE occurred on celecoxib than ibuprofen (HR 0.52 [0.29-0.94], P = 0.03), and less IDA vs naproxen (0.42 [0.23-0.77, P = 0.005]). Corticosteroid use increased total GI events and CSGIE. H. pylori serological status had no influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthritis patients taking NSAIDs plus esomeprazole have infrequent clinically significant gastrointestinal events. Co-prescribed with esomeprazole, celecoxib has better overall GI safety than ibuprofen or naproxen at these doses, despite treatment with low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids.

Interaction of Left Ventricular Size and Sex on Outcome of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Among Patients With a Narrow QRS Duration in the EchoCRT Trial

BACKGROUND

Longer QRS duration (QRSd) improves, but increased left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) reduces, efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). QRSd/LVEDV ratios differ between sexes. We hypothesized that in the EchoCRT (Echocardiography Guided Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial enrolling patients with heart failure with QRSd <130 ms, those with larger LVEDV would deteriorate but those with the highest QRSd/LVEDV would improve with CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Primary outcome in patients (n=787, 72% men, 93% New York Heart Association class III, QRSd <130 ms, LV ejection fraction ≤35%, LV dilation and dyssynchrony) randomized to CRT-ON or CRT-OFF and followed up for 19 months was compared according to LVEDV (height indexed) or QRSd/LVEDV ratio, in multivariable analysis. Structural remodeling was assessed echocardiographically 6 months after implantation. Patients with baseline LVEDV higher than or equal to median worsened with CRT (death/heart failure hospitalization: CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF, 35.2% versus 24.5% [hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.42; P=0.012]), but those with LVEDV lower than median remained unaffected. Patients with the highest QRSd/LVEDV ratio improved with CRT (death/heart failure hospitalization in top quartile: 20.9% in CRT-ON [n=91] versus 28.3% in CRT-OFF [n=106] [hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-1.24; P=0.188], versus the remaining quartiles: 31.7% in CRT-ON [n=300] versus 24.8% in CRT-OFF [n=290] [hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.02; P=0.016], test for interaction P=0.046). QRSd and dyssynchrony were similar between groups. The 3-way test for interaction indicated no sex-specific effects. However, numerically, men with LVEDV higher than or equal to median accounted for worse outcomes of CRT-ON. Women, with the highest QRSd/LVEDV ratio exhibited significant reverse remodeling.

CONCLUSION

CRT has opposite effects among patients with heart failure with QRSd <130 ms according to LV size: worsening outcomes in patients with larger LV, but inducing beneficial effects in those with smaller LV.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00683696.

Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat or Allopurinol in Patients with Gout

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular risk is increased in patients with gout. We compared cardiovascular outcomes associated with febuxostat, a nonpurine xanthine oxidase inhibitor, with those associated with allopurinol, a purine base analogue xanthine oxidase inhibitor, in patients with gout and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial involving patients with gout and cardiovascular disease; patients were randomly assigned to receive febuxostat or allopurinol and were stratified according to kidney function. The trial had a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point (a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with urgent revascularization).

RESULTS

In total, 6190 patients underwent randomization, received febuxostat or allopurinol, and were followed for a median of 32 months (maximum, 85 months). The trial regimen was discontinued in 56.6% of patients, and 45.0% discontinued follow-up. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a primary end-point event occurred in 335 patients (10.8%) in the febuxostat group and in 321 patients (10.4%) in the allopurinol group (hazard ratio, 1.03; upper limit of the one-sided 98.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.23; P=0.002 for noninferiority). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were higher in the febuxostat group than in the allopurinol group (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.47]; hazard ratio for cardiovascular death, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.73]). The results with regard to the primary end point and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the analysis of events that occurred while patients were being treated were similar to the results in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with gout and major cardiovascular coexisting conditions, febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol with respect to rates of adverse cardiovascular events. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were higher with febuxostat than with allopurinol. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; CARES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01101035 .).

The Risk of Major NSAID Toxicity with Celecoxib, Ibuprofen, or Naproxen: A Secondary Analysis of the PRECISION Trial

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is unclear. Patients and providers are interested in an integrated view of risk . We examined the risk of major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity in the PRECISION trial.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial enrolling 24,081 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at moderate or high cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized to receive celecoxib 100 to 200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen 600 to 800 mg thrice daily, or naproxen 375 to 500 mg twice daily. All patients were provided with a proton pump inhibitor. The outcome was major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, including time to first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, important gastrointestinal events, renal events, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 4.1% of subjects sustained any major toxicity in the celecoxib arm, 4.8% in the naproxen arm, and 5.3% in the ibuprofen arm. Analyses adjusted for aspirin use and geographic region found that subjects in the naproxen arm had a 20% (95% CI 4-39) higher risk of major toxicity than celecoxib users and that 38% (95% CI 19-59) higher risk. These risks translate into numbers needed to harm of 135 (95% CI, 72-971) for naproxen and 82 (95% CI, 53-173) for ibuprofen, both compared with celecoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with symptomatic arthritis who had moderate to high risk of cardiovascular events, approximately 1 in 20 experienced a major toxicity over 1 to 2 years. Patients using naproxen or ibuprofen experienced significantly higher risk of major toxicity than those using celecoxib.

Impact of Beta-Blockade on Cardiac Events in Patients with Chronic Severe Nonischemic Mitral Regurgitation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of beta-blockade on cardiac events among patients with initially asymptomatic chronic severe nonischemic mitral valve regurgitation (MR).

METHODS

Data from 52 consecutive patients in our prospective natural history study of isolated chronic severe nonischemic MR were assessed post hoc over 19 years to examine the relation of chronic beta-blockade use to subsequent cardiac events (death or indications for mitral valve surgery, MVS). At entry, all patients were free of surgical indications; 9 received beta-blockers. Cardiac event rate differences were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier log rank comparison.

RESULTS

During follow-up, cardiac events included sudden death (1), heart failure (8), atrial fibrillation (6), left ventricular dimensions at systole ≥4.5 cm (11), left ventricular ejection fraction <60% (6), right ventricular ejection fraction <35% (2), and a combination of cardiac events (7). The cardiac event risk was 4-fold higher among patients receiving beta-blockers (average annual risk = 60.6%) versus those not receiving beta-blockers (average annual risk = 15.2%; p = 0.001). These effects remained statistically significant (p = 0.005) when analysis was adjusted for other baseline covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockade appears to confer an increased risk of sudden cardiac death or indications for MVS among patients with chronic severe nonischemic MR. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Duration of chronic heart failure affects outcomes with preserved effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine: findings from SHIFT

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials.

Streamlining cardiovascular clinical trials to improve efficiency and generalisability

Controlled trials provide the most valid determination of the efficacy and safety of an intervention, but large cardiovascular clinical trials have become extremely costly and complex, making it difficult to study many important clinical questions. A critical question, and the main objective of this review, is how trials might be simplified while maintaining randomisation to preserve scientific integrity and unbiased efficacy assessments. Experience with alternative approaches is accumulating, specifically with registry-based randomised controlled trials that make use of data already collected. This approach addresses bias concerns while still capitalising on the benefits and efficiencies of a registry. Several completed or ongoing trials illustrate the feasibility of using registry-based controlled trials to answer important questions relevant to daily clinical practice. Randomised trials within healthcare organisation databases may also represent streamlined solutions for some types of investigations, although data quality (endpoint assessment) is likely to be a greater concern in those settings. These approaches are not without challenges, and issues pertaining to informed consent, blinding, data quality and regulatory standards remain to be fully explored. Collaboration among stakeholders is necessary to achieve standards for data management and analysis, to validate large data sources for use in randomised trials, and to re-evaluate ethical standards to encourage research while also ensuring that patients are protected. The rapidly evolving efforts to streamline cardiovascular clinical trials have the potential to lead to major advances in promoting better care and outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Budget Impact of Adding Ivabradine to Standard of Care in Patients with Chronic Systolic Heart Failure in the United States

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80% of which is directly attributable to hospitalizations. The SHIFT clinical study demonstrated that ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) reduced HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared with SoC alone.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related = $37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV = $17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2%, increasing 2% per year.

RESULTS

Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of $0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine's reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was $0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Amgen. Patel is employed by Amgen; Kielhorn was employed by Amgen at the time of the study but is no longer affiliated with Amgen. Borer, Böhm, Ford, and Komajda have received scientific support, consultative fees, and/or speakers honoraria from Servier and Amgen in connection with SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. Borer also has received consultative fees from Celladon, Pfizer, ARMGO, Cardiorentis, Novartis, and Takeda USA. Kansal, Dorman, Krotneva, and Zheng are employees of Evidera, which was hired to assist with this study. Tavazzi has received research grants and consultation fees from Servier in connection with this study and has had advisory board memberships with Boston Scientific, Servier, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and CVie Therapeutics. Study concept and design were contributed by Dorman and Keilhorn, along with the other authors. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer oversaw collection of the data. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer (along with Karl Swedberg) formed the Executive Committee of SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. The manuscript was written by Kansal, along with the other authors, and revised by Borer and Patel, with assistance from the other authors.

Financial impact of ivabradine on reducing heart failure penalties under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

OBJECTIVE

The introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has led to renewed interest in developing strategies to reduce 30 day readmissions among patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, a model was developed to investigate whether the addition of ivabradine to a standard-of-care (SoC) treatment regimen for patients with HF would reduce HRRP penalties incurred by a hypothetical hospital with excess 30 day readmissions.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A model using a Monte Carlo simulation framework was developed. Model inputs included national hospital characteristics, hospital-specific characteristics, and the ivabradine treatment effect as quantified by a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the I_f inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT).

RESULTS

The model computed an 83% reduction in HF readmission penalty payments in a hypothetical hospital with a readmission rate of 22.95% (excess readmission ratio = 1.056 over the national average readmission rate of 21.73%), translating into net savings of $44,016. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the readmission penalty is affected by the specific characteristics of the hospital, including the readmission rate, size of the ivabradine-eligible population, and ivabradine utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that the addition of ivabradine to an SoC treatment regimen for patients with HF may lead to a reduction in the penalties incurred by hospitals under the HRRP. This highlights the role ivabradine can play as part of a wider effort to optimize the care of patients with HF.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated.

RESULTS

A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Benefits of Heart Rate Slowing With Ivabradine in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

Heart rate (HR) is a risk factor in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF) that, when reduced, provides outcome benefits. It is also a target for angina pectoris prevention and a risk marker in chronic coronary artery disease without HF. HR can be reduced by drugs; however, among those used clinically, only ivabradine reduces HR directly in the sinoatrial nodal cells without other known effects on the cardiovascular system. This review provides current information regarding the safety and efficacy of HR reduction with ivabradine in clinical studies involving >36,000 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease and >6,500 patients with systolic HF. The largest trials, Morbidity-Mortality Evaluation of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease, showed no effect on outcomes. The Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, a randomized controlled trial in >6,500 patients with HF, revealed marked and significant HR-mediated reduction in cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalizations while improving quality of life and left ventricular mechanical function after treatment with ivabradine. The adverse effects of ivabradine predominantly included bradycardia and atrial fibrillation (both uncommon) and ocular flashing scotomata (phosphenes) but otherwise were similar to placebo. In conclusion, ivabradine improves outcomes in patients with systolic HF; rates of overall adverse events are similar to placebo.

Efficacy Profile of Ivabradine in Patients with Heart Failure plus Angina Pectoris

Objectives: In the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), slowing of the heart rate with ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations among patients with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). Subsequently, in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) slowing of the heart rate in patients without CHF provided no benefit for cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary composite end point), with secondary analyses suggesting possible harm in the angina subgroup. Therefore, we examined the impact of ivabradine in the patients with CHF plus angina in SHIFT. Methods: SHIFT enrolled adults with stable, symptomatic CHF, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and a sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Outcomes were the SHIFT and SIGNIFY primary composite end points and their components. Results: Of 6,505 patients in SHIFT, 2,220 (34%) reported angina at randomization. Ivabradine numerically, but not significantly, reduced the SIGNIFY primary composite end point by 8, 11 and 11% in the SHIFT angina subgroup, nonangina subgroup and overall population, respectively. Ivabradine also reduced the SHIFT primary composite end point in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions: In SHIFT, ivabradine showed consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHF; similar results were seen in the subgroup of SHIFT patients with angina.

Misconceptions and Facts About Mitral Regurgitation

Mitral regurgitation is a common heart valve disease. It is defined to be primary when it results from the pathology of the mitral valve apparatus itself and secondary when it is caused by distortion of the architecture or function of the left ventricle. Although the diagnosis and management of mitral regurgitation rely heavily on echocardiography, one should bear in mind the caveats and shortcomings of such an approach. Clinical decision making commonly focuses on the indications for surgery, but it is complex and mandates precise assessment of the mitral pathology, symptom status of the patient, and ventricular performance (right and left) among other descriptors. It is important for healthcare providers at all levels to be familiar with the clinical picture, diagnosis, disease course, and management of mitral regurgitation.

Chronic exposure to ivabradine reduces readmissions in the vulnerable phase after hospitalization for worsening systolic heart failure: a post-hoc analysis of SHIFT

AIMS

During the post-discharge phase following a heart failure hospitalization (HFH), patients are at high risk of early readmission despite standard of care therapy. We examined the impact of chronic exposure to ivabradine on early readmissions in patients hospitalized for heart failure during the course of the SHIFT study (Systolic Heart Failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1186 of the 6505 randomized patients experienced at least one HFH during the study, and had a more severe profile than those without HFH. Of these 1186 patients, 334 patients (28%) were rehospitalized within 3 months for any reason, mostly for cardiovascular causes (86%), including HFH (61%). Ivabradine was associated with fewer all-cause hospitalizations at 1 month [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.00, P < 0.05], 2 months (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.98, P = 0.03), and 3 months (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04). A trend for a reduction in cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations was also observed in ivabradine-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate in this post-hoc analysis that chronic exposure to ivabradine reduces the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations during the vulnerable phase after a HFH. Further studies are needed to investigate if in-hospital or early post-discharge initiation of ivabradine could be useful to improve early outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF.