Rate Control versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations. In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation who are in stable condition, the best initial treatment strategy--heart-rate control or rhythm control--remains controversial. METHODS: Patients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either rate control or rhythm control. The primary end point was the total number of days of hospitalization within 60 days after randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 695 of the 2109 patients (33.0%) who were enrolled preoperatively; of these patients, 523 underwent randomization. The total numbers of hospital days in the rate-control group and the rhythm-control group were similar (median, 5.1 days and 5.0 days, respectively; P=0.76). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death (P=0.64) or overall serious adverse events (24.8 per 100 patient-months in the rate-control group and 26.4 per 100 patient-months in the rhythm-control group, P=0.61), including thromboembolic and bleeding events. About 25% of the patients in each group deviated from the assigned therapy, mainly because of drug ineffectiveness (in the rate-control group) or amiodarone side effects or adverse drug reactions (in the rhythm-control group). At 60 days, 93.8% of the patients in the rate-control group and 97.9% of those in the rhythm-control group had had a stable heart rhythm without atrial fibrillation for the previous 30 days (P=0.02), and 84.2% and 86.9%, respectively, had been free from atrial fibrillation from discharge to 60 days (P=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for rate control and rhythm control to treat postoperative atrial fibrillation were associated with equal numbers of days of hospitalization, similar complication rates, and similarly low rates of persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. Neither treatment strategy showed a net clinical advantage over the other. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02132767.).

Intramyocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Precursor Cells and Successful Temporary Weaning From Left Ventricular Assist Device Support in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves myocardial function, but few patients recover sufficiently for explant, which has focused attention on stem cells to augment cardiac recovery. Objective: To assess efficacy and adverse effects of intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) during LVAD implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial involving patients with advanced heart failure, undergoing LVAD implant, at 19 North American centers (July 2015-August 2017). The 1-year follow-up ended August 2018. Interventions: Intramyocardial injections of 150 million allogeneic MPCs or cryoprotective medium as a sham treatment in a 2:1 ratio (n = 106 vs n = 53). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of successful temporary weans (of 3 planned assessments) from LVAD support within 6 months of randomization. This end point was assessed using a Bayesian analysis with a predefined threshold of a posterior probability of 80% to indicate success. The 1-year primary safety end point was the incidence of intervention-related adverse events (myocarditis, myocardial rupture, neoplasm, hypersensitivity reactions, and immune sensitization). Secondary end points included readmissions and adverse events at 6 months and 1-year survival. Results: Of 159 patients (mean age, 56 years; 11.3% women), 155 (97.5%) completed 1-year of follow-up. The posterior probability that MPCs increased the likelihood of successful weaning was 69%; below the predefined threshold for success. The mean proportion of successful temporary weaning from LVAD support over 6 months was 61% in the MPC group and 58% in the control group (rate ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83-1.41; P = .55). No patient experienced a primary safety end point. Of 10 prespecified secondary end points reported, 9 did not reach statistical significance. One-year mortality was not significantly different between the MPC group and the control group (14.2% vs 15.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95%, CI, 0.38-2.11; P = .80). The rate of serious adverse events was not significantly different between groups (70.9 vs 78.7 per 100 patient-months; difference, -7.89; 95% CI, -39.95 to 24.17; P = .63) nor was the rate of readmissions (0.68 vs 0.75 per 100 patient-months; difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.41 to 0.27; P = .68). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with advanced heart failure, intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells, compared with injections of a cryoprotective medium as sham treatment, did not improve successful temporary weaning from left ventricular assist device support at 6 months. The findings do not support the use of intramyocardial mesenchymal stem cells to promote cardiac recovery as measured by temporary weaning from device support. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02362646.

Effect of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on CNS Infarction in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Objective: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016. Interventions: Use of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition. Results: Among 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.