Aficamten for Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: One of the major determinants of exercise intolerance and limiting symptoms among patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an elevated intracardiac pressure resulting from left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Aficamten is an oral selective cardiac myosin inhibitor that reduces left ventricular outflow tract gradients by mitigating cardiac hypercontractility. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with symptomatic obstructive HCM to receive aficamten (starting dose, 5 mg; maximum dose, 20 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks, with dose adjustment based on echocardiography results. The primary end point was the change from baseline to week 24 in the peak oxygen uptake as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The 10 prespecified secondary end points (tested hierarchically) were change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver, and duration of eligibility for septal reduction therapy (all assessed at week 24); change in the KCCQ-CSS, improvement in the NYHA functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, and occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver (all assessed at week 12); and change in the total workload as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients underwent randomization: 142 to the aficamten group and 140 to the placebo group. The mean age was 59.1 years, 59.2% were men, the baseline mean resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient was 55.1 mm Hg, and the baseline mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 74.8%. At 24 weeks, the mean change in the peak oxygen uptake was 1.8 ml per kilogram per minute (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.3) in the aficamten group and 0.0 ml per kilogram per minute (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5) in the placebo group (least-squares mean between-group difference, 1.7 ml per kilogram per minute; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4; P<0.001). The results for all 10 secondary end points were significantly improved with aficamten as compared with placebo. The incidence of adverse events appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, treatment with aficamten resulted in a significantly greater improvement in peak oxygen uptake than placebo. (Funded by Cytokinetics; SEQUOIA-HCM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05186818.).

Effect of Mavacamten in Women Compared With Men With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Insights From EXPLORER-HCM.

BACKGROUND: Compared with men, women with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) have a higher incidence of heart failure and worse outcomes. We investigated baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and response to mavacamten among women compared with men in the EXPLORER-HCM study (Clinical Study to Evaluate Mavacamten [MYK-461] in Adults With Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy). METHODS: A prespecified post hoc analysis of sex from the blinded, randomized EXPLORER-HCM trial of mavacamten versus placebo in symptomatic patients with obstructive HCM was performed. Baseline characteristics were compared with t tests for continuous variables (expressed as mean values) and χ2 tests for categorical variables. Prespecified primary, secondary, and exploratory end points and echocardiographic measurements from baseline to end of treatment (week 30) were analyzed with ANCOVA for continuous end points and a generalized linear model with binomial distribution for binary end points, with adjustment for each outcome's baseline value, New York Heart Association class, ß-blocker use, and ergometer type. RESULTS: At baseline, women (n=102) were older (62 years versus 56 years; P<0.0001), had lower peak oxygen consumption (16.7 mL·kg-1·min-1 versus 21.3 mL·kg-1·min-1; P<0.0001), were more likely to be assigned New York Heart Association class III (42% versus 17%; P<0.0001), had worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score 64 versus 75; P<0.0001), and had higher baseline plasma NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels (1704 ng/L versus 990 ng/L; P=0.004) than men (n=149). After 30 weeks of mavacamten treatment, similar improvements were observed in women and men in the primary composite end point (percentage difference on mavacamten versus placebo, 22% versus 19%, respectively; P=0.759) and in the secondary end points of change in postexercise left ventricular outflow tract gradient (-42.4 mm Hg versus -33.6 mm Hg; P=0.348), change in peak oxygen consumption (1.2 mL·kg-1·min-1 versus 1.6 mL·kg-1·min-1; P=0.633), and percentage achieving ≥1 New York Heart Association class improvement (41% versus 28%; P=0.254). However, women had greater improvement in health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score 14.8 versus 6.1; P=0.026) and in the exploratory end point of NT-proBNP levels (-1322 ng/L versus -649 ng/L; P=0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Although at baseline women with symptomatic obstructive HCM enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM were older and had worse heart failure and health status than men, treatment with mavacamten resulted in similar improvements in the primary and most secondary EXPLORER-HCM end points and greater improvements in health status and NT-proBNP. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03470545.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Bystander CPR for Witnessed Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provided by bystanders contribute to survival disparities among persons with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is critical to understand whether the incidence of bystander CPR in witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at home and in public settings differs according to the race or ethnic group of the person with cardiac arrest in order to inform interventions. METHODS: Within a large U.S. registry, we identified 110,054 witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during the period from 2013 through 2019. We used a hierarchical logistic regression model to analyze the incidence of bystander CPR in Black or Hispanic persons as compared with White persons with witnessed cardiac arrests at home and in public locations. We analyzed the overall incidence as well as the incidence according to neighborhood racial or ethnic makeup and income strata. Neighborhoods were classified as predominantly White (>80% of residents), majority Black or Hispanic (>50% of residents), or integrated, and as high income (an annual median household income of >$80,000), middle income ($40,000-$80,000), or low income (<$40,000). RESULTS: Overall, 35,469 of the witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (32.2%) occurred in Black or Hispanic persons. Black and Hispanic persons were less likely to receive bystander CPR at home (38.5%) than White persons (47.4%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.76) and less likely to receive bystander CPR in public locations than White persons (45.6% vs. 60.0%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.66). The incidence of bystander CPR among Black and Hispanic persons was less than that among White persons not only in predominantly White neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.90) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75) but also in majority Black or Hispanic neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.83) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.68) and in integrated neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.81) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.77). Similarly, across all neighborhood income strata, the frequency of bystander CPR at home and in public locations was lower among Black and Hispanic persons with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest than among White persons. CONCLUSIONS: In witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, Black and Hispanic persons were less likely than White persons to receive potentially lifesaving bystander CPR at home and in public locations, regardless of the racial or ethnic makeup or income level of the neighborhood where the cardiac arrest occurred. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Racial Differences in Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the CHIEF-HF, DEFINE-HF, and PRESERVED-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: Health status outcomes, including symptoms, function, and quality of life, are worse for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce cardiovascular mortality and improve health status in patients with heart failure, but whether the health status benefit of SGLT2is is similar across races is not established. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment effect of SGLT2is (versus placebo) on health status for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. METHODS: We combined patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials of SGLT2is: DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effect on Symptoms and Biomarkers in Patients With Heart Failure; n=263), PRESERVED-HF (Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; n=324), and CHIEF-HF (A Study on Impact of Canagliflozin on Health Status, Quality of Life, and Functional Status in Heart Failure; n=448). These 3 United States-based trials enrolled a substantial proportion of Black patients, and each used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) to measure health status at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Among 1035 total participants, selecting self-identified Black and White patients with complete information yielded a final analytic cohort of 935 patients. The primary endpoint was KCCQ Clinical Summary score. Twelve-week change in KCCQ with SGLT2is versus placebo was compared between Black and White patients by testing the interaction between race and treatment using multivariable linear regression models adjusted for trial, baseline KCCQ (as a restricted cubic spline), race, and treatment. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. RESULTS: Among 935 participants, 236 (25%) self-identified as Black, and 469 (50.2%) were treated with an SGLT2i. Treatment with an SGLT2i, compared with placebo, resulted in KCCQ Clinical Summary score improvements at 12 weeks of +4.0 points (95% CI, 1.7-6.3; P=0.0007) in White patients and +4.7 points (95% CI, 0.7-8.7; P=0.02) in Black patients, with no significant interaction by race and treatment (P=0.76). Other KCCQ scales showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an SGLT2i resulted in consistent and significant improvements in health status for both Black and White patients with heart failure.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Psychosocial and socioeconomic factors are most predictive of health status in patients with claudication.

BACKGROUND: As a key treatment goal for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD), improving health status has also become an important end point for clinical trials and performance-based care. An understanding of patient factors associated with 1-year PAD health status is lacking in patients with PAD. METHODS: The health status of 1073 consecutive patients with symptomatic PAD in the international multicenter PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry was measured at baseline and 1 year with the Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ). The association of 47 patient characteristics with 1-year PAQ scores was assessed using a random forest algorithm. Variables of clinical significance were retained and included in a hierarchical multivariable linear regression model predicting 1-year PAQ summary scores. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 67.7 ± 9.3 years, and 37% were female. Variables with the highest importance ranking in predicting 1-year PAQ summary score were baseline PAQ summary score, Patient Health Questionnaire-8 depression score, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 anxiety score, new onset symptom presentation, insurance status, current or prior diagnosis of depression, low social support, initial invasive treatment, duration of symptoms, and race. The addition of 19 clinical variables in an extended model marginally improved the explained variance in 1-year health status (from R2 0.312 to 0.335). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' 1-year PAD-specific health status, as measured by the PAQ, can be predicted from 10 mostly psychosocial and socioeconomic patient characteristics including depression, anxiety, insurance status, social support, and symptoms. These characteristics should be validated and tested in other PAD cohorts so that this model can inform risk adjustment and prediction of PAD health status in comparative effectiveness research and performance-based care.

Leveraging electronic health records to streamline the conduct of cardiovascular clinical trials.

Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.

Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is chronic in nature, and individualized chronic disease management is a central focus of care. To accommodate this reality, tools to measure the impact and quality of the PAD care delivered are necessary. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and instruments to measure them, that is, PRO measures, have been well studied in the research and clinical trial context, but a shift toward integrating them into clinical practice has yet to take place. A framework to use PRO measures as indicators of the quality of PAD care delivered, that is, PRO performance measures (PRO-PMs), is provided in this scientific statement. Measurement goals to consider by PAD clinical phenotypes are provided, as well as an overview of potential benefits of adopting PRO-PMs in the clinical practice of PAD care, including reducing unwanted variability and promoting health equity. A central discussion with considerations for risk adjustment of PRO-PMs, individualized PAD care, and the need for patient engagement strategies is offered. Furthermore, necessary conditions in terms of required competencies and training to handle PRO-PM data are discussed because the interpretation and handling of these data come with great responsibility and consequences for designing care that adopts a broader framework of risk that goes beyond the inclusion of biomedical variables. To conclude, health system perspectives and an agenda to reach the next steps in the implementation of PRO-PMs in PAD care are offered.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Effect of Patient-Reported Preprocedural Physical and Mental Health on 10-Year Mortality After Percutaneous or Surgical Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and anatomical characteristics are often considered key factors in deciding between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) such as left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease. However, little is known about the interaction between self-reported preprocedural physical/mental health and clinical outcomes after revascularization. METHODS: This subgroup analysis of the SYNTAXES trial (SYNTAX Extended Survival), which is the extended follow-up of the randomized SYNTAX trial (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) comparing PCI with CABG in patients with left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease, stratified patients by terciles of Physical (PCS) or Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores derived from the preprocedural 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, with higher PCS and MCS scores representing better physical and mental health, respectively. The primary end point was all-cause death at 10 years. RESULTS: A total of 1656 patients with preprocedural 36-Item Short Form Health Survey data were included in the present study. Both higher PCS and MCS were independently associated with lower 10-year mortality (10-point increase in PCS adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.97]; P=0.021; in MCS adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.95]; P=0.005). A significant survival benefit with CABG over PCI was observed in the highest PCS (>45.5) and MCS (>52.3) terciles with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions (PCS Pinteraction=0.033, MCS Pinteraction=0.015). In patients with both high PCS (>45.5) and MCS (>52.3), 10-year mortality was significantly higher with PCI compared with CABG (30.5% versus 12.2%; hazard ratio, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.55-5.30]; P=0.001), whereas among those with low PCS (≤45.5) or low MCS (≤52.3), there were no significant differences in 10-year mortality between PCI and CABG, resulting in a significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction (Pinteraction=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with left-main CAD or 3-vessel disease, patient-reported preprocedural physical and mental health status was strongly associated with long-term mortality and modified the relative treatment effects of PCI versus CABG. Patients with the best physical and mental health had better 10-year survival with CABG compared with PCI. Assessment of self-reported physical and mental health is important when selecting the optimal revascularization strategy. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; SYNTAXES Unique identifier: NCT03417050. URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; SYNTAX Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Does early detection of atrial fibrillation reduce the risk of thromboembolic events? Rationale and design of the Heartline study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of using direct-to-consumer wearable devices as a means to timely detect atrial fibrillation (AF) and to improve clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Heartline is a pragmatic, randomized, and decentralized application-based trial of US participants aged ≥65 years. Two randomized cohorts include adults with possession of an iPhone and without a history of AF and those with a diagnosis of AF taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for ≥30 days. Participants within each cohort are randomized (3:1) to either a core digital engagement program (CDEP) via iPhone application (Heartline application) and an Apple Watch (Apple Watch Group) or CDEP alone (iPhone-only Group). The Apple Watch Group has the watch irregular rhythm notification (IRN) feature enabled and access to the ECG application on the Apple Watch. If an IRN notification is issued for suspected AF then the study application instructs participants in the Apple Watch Group to seek medical care. All participants were "watch-naïve" at time of enrollment and have an option to either buy or loan an Apple Watch as part of this study. The primary end point is time from randomization to clinical diagnosis of AF, with confirmation by health care claims. Key secondary endpoint are claims-based incidence of a 6-component composite cardiovascular/systemic embolism/mortality event, DOAC medication use and adherence, costs/health resource utilization, and frequency of hospitalizations for bleeding. All study assessments, including patient-reported outcomes, are conducted through the study application. The target study enrollment is approximately 28,000 participants in total; at time of manuscript submission, a total of 26,485 participants have been enrolled into the study. CONCLUSION: The Heartline Study will assess if an Apple Watch with the IRN and ECG application, along with application-facilitated digital health engagement modules, improves time to AF diagnosis and cardiovascular outcomes in a real-world environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276441.

Recruitment Strategies of a Decentralized Randomized Placebo Controlled Clinical Trial: The Canagliflozin Impact on Health Status, Quality of Life and Functional Status in Heart Failure (CHIEF-HF) Trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been growing Interest in patient-centered clinical trials using mobile technologies to reduce the need for in-person visits. The CHIEF-HF (Canagliflozin Impact on Health Status, Quality of Life and Functional Status in Heart Failure) trial was designed as a double-blind, randomized, fully decentralized clinical trial (DCT) that identified, consented, treated, and followed participants without any in-person visits. Patient-reported questionnaires were the primary outcome, which were collected by a mobile application. To inform future DCTs, we sought to describe the strategies used in successful trial recruitment. METHODS: This article describes the operational structure and novel strategies employed in a completely DCT by summarizing the recruitment, enrollment, engagement, retention, and follow-up processes used in the execution of the trial at 18 centers. RESULTS: A total of 18 sites contacted 130,832 potential participants, of which 2572 (2.0%) opened a hyperlink to the study website, completed a brief survey, and agreed to be contacted for potential inclusion. Of these, 1333 were eligible, and 658 consented; there were 182 screen failures, due primarily to baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores' not meeting inclusion criteria, resulting in 476 participants' being enrolled (18.5%). There was significant site-level variation in the number of patients invited (median = 2976; range 73-46,920) and in those agreeing to be contacted (median = 2.4%; range 0.05%-16.4%). At the site with the highest enrollment, patients contacted by electronic medical record portal messaging were more likely to opt into the study successfully than those contacted by e-mail alone (7.8% vs 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: CHIEF-HF used a novel design and operational structure to test the efficacy of a therapeutic treatment, but marked variability across sites and strategies for recruiting participants was observed. This approach may be advantageous for clinical research across a broader range of therapeutic areas, but further optimization of recruitment efforts is warranted. REGISTRATION: NCT04252287 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04252287.

Do PRO Measures Function the Same Way for all Individuals With Heart Failure?

Women diagnosed with heart failure report worse quality of life than men on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. An inherent assumption of PRO measures in heart failure is that women and men interpret questions about quality of life the same way. If this is not the case, the risk then becomes that the PRO scores cannot be used for valid comparison or to combine outcomes by subgroups of the population. Inability to compare subgroups validly is a broad issue and has implications for clinical trials, and it also has specific and important implications for identifying and beginning to address health inequities. We describe this threat to validity (the psychometric term is differential item functioning), why it is so important in heart-failure outcomes, the research that has been conducted thus far in this area, the gaps that remain, and what we can do to avoid this threat to validity. PROs bring unique information to clinical decision making, and the validity of PRO measures is key to interpreting differences in heart failure outcomes.

Association Between Change in Ambulatory Pulmonary Artery Pressures and Natriuretic Peptides in Patients with Heart Failure: Results From the EMBRACE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressures and serial N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements guide heart failure (HF) treatment, but their association has yet to be described. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Empagliflozin Evaluation by Measuring the Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients with Heart Failure (EMBRACE-HF) trial, patients with HF and a remote PA pressure monitoring device were randomized to empagliflozin vs placebo. PA diastolic pressures (PADP) and NT-proBNP levels were obtained at baseline and 6 and 12 weeks. We used linear mixed models to examine the association between change in PADP and change in NT-proBNP, adjusting for baseline covariates. Of 62 patients, the mean patient age was 66.2 years, and 63% were male. The mean baseline PADP was 21.8 ± 6.4 mm Hg, and the mean NT-proBNP was 1844.6 ± 2767.7 pg/mL. The mean change between baseline and averaged 6- and 12-week PADP was -0.4 ± 3.1 mm Hg, and the mean change between baseline and averaged 6- and 12-week NT-proBNP was -81.5 ± 878.6 pg/mL. In adjusted analyses, every 2-mm Hg decrease in PADP was associated with an NT-proBNP reduction of 108.9 pg/mL (95% confidence interval -4.3 to 222.0, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that short-term decreases in ambulatory PADP seem to be associated with decreases in NT-proBNP. This finding may provide additional clinical context when tailoring treatment for patients with HF.

Predictors of Revascularization in Lower-Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: Insights From the PORTRAIT Study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) guidelines recommend revascularization only for patients with lifestyle-limiting claudication that is refractory to goal-directed medical therapy (class IIA, level of evidence A). However, real-world invasive treatment patterns and predictors of revascularization in patients with symptomatic lower-extremity PAD are still largely unknown. AIM: We aimed to examine rates, patient-level predictors, and site variability of early revascularization in patients with new or worsening PAD symptoms. METHODS: Among patients with new-onset or recent exacerbation of PAD in the 10-center Patient-centered Outcomes Related to TReatment practices in peripheral Arterial disease: Investigating Trajectories (PORTRAIT) study enrolled between June 2011 and September 2015, we classified early revascularization (endovascular or surgical) as procedures being performed within 3 months of presentation. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with early revascularization. Variability across sites was estimated using the median odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: Among 797 participants, early revascularization procedures were performed in 224 (28.1%). Rutherford class 3 (vs Rutherford class 1; OR=1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3.33) and having lesions in both iliofemoral and below-the-knee arterial segments (vs below the knee only; OR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.15-2.67) were associated with a higher odds of revascularization. Longer PAD duration >12 months (vs 1-6 months; OR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.32-0.77), higher ankle-brachial index scores (per 0.1 unit increase; OR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.96), and higher Peripheral Artery Questionnaire Summary scores (per 10 unit increase; OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99) were associated with a lower odds of revascularization. The raw rates for revascularization in different sites ranged from 6.25% to 66.28%, and the median OR was 1.88, 95% CI: 1.38-3.57. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 3 patients with symptomatic PAD received early revascularization. A more extensive disease and symptom burden were the main predictors of receiving early revascularization in PAD. There was significant site variability in revascularization patterns, and further studies will better understand the source of this variability and optimal selection criteria for early revascularization. CLINICAL IMPACT: Real world patterns and predictors of early revascularization in peripheral artery disease are not well understood. In this retrospective analysis of the POTRAIT study, about 1 out of 3 patients with PAD symptoms received early revascularization, with significant site variability. A more extensive disease and symptom burden were the main predictors of receiving early revascularization in PAD.