Percutaneous repair of moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation in patients with symptomatic heart failure: Baseline characteristics of patients in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial and comparison to COAPT and MITRA-FR trials.

AIM: The RESHAPE-HF2 trial is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MitraClip device system for the treatment of clinically important functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) in patients with heart failure (HF). This report describes the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial compared to those enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RESHAPE-HF2 study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, multicentre trial including patients with symptomatic HF, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 20% and 50% with moderate-to-severe or severe FMR, for whom isolated mitral valve surgery was not recommended. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a strategy of delivering or withholding MitraClip. Of 506 patients randomized, the mean age of the patients was 70 ± 10 years, and 99 of them (20%) were women. The median EuroSCORE II was 5.3 (2.8-9.0) and median plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 2745 (1407-5385) pg/ml. Most patients were prescribed beta-blockers (96%), diuretics (96%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (82%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (82%). The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors was rare (7%). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices had been previously implanted in 29% of patients. Mean LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) were 31 ± 8%, 211 ± 76 ml and 0.25 ± 0.08 cm2, respectively, whereas 44% of patients had mitral regurgitation severity of grade 4+. Compared to patients enrolled in COAPT and MITRA-FR, those enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 were less likely to have mitral regurgitation grade 4+ and, on average, HAD lower EROA, and plasma NT-proBNP and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate, but otherwise had similar age, comorbidities, CRT therapy and LVEF. CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 represent a third distinct population where MitraClip was tested in, that is one mainly comprising of patients with moderate-to-severe FMR instead of only severe FMR, as enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. The results of RESHAPE-HF2 will provide crucial insights regarding broader application of the transcatheter edge-to-edge repair procedure in clinical practice.

Randomized investigation of the MitraClip device in heart failure: Design and rationale of the RESHAPE-HF2 trial design.

AIMS: The safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip device to treat functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) has been tested in previous clinical trials yielding somewhat heterogeneous results in heart failure (HF) patients. Over time, the MitraClip device system has been modified and clinical practice evolved to consider also less severely diseased HF patients with FMR for this therapeutic option. The RESHAPE-HF2 trial aims to assess the safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip device system on top of medical therapy considered optimal in the treatment of clinically significant FMR in symptomatic patients with chronic HF. METHODS: The RESHAPE-HF2 is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicentre trial designed to evaluate the use of the MitraClip device (used in the most up-to-date version as available at sites) plus optimal standard of care therapy (device group) compared to optimal standard of care therapy alone (control group). Eligible subjects have signs and symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class II-IV despite optimal therapy), and have moderate-to-severe or severe FMR, as confirmed by a central echocardiography core laboratory; have an ejection fraction between ≥20% and ≤50% (initially 15-35% for NYHA class II patients, and 15-45% for NYHA class III/IV patients); have been adequately treated per applicable standards, and have received appropriate revascularization and cardiac resynchronization therapy, if eligible; had a HF hospitalization or elevated natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥300 pg/ml or N-terminal proBNP ≥1000 pg/ml) in the last 90 days; and in whom isolated mitral valve surgery is not a recommended treatment option. The trial has three primary endpoints, which are these: (i) the composite rate of total (first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death during 24 months of follow-up, (ii) the rate of total (i.e. first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations within 24 months, and (iii) the change from baseline to 12 months in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score. The three primary endpoints will be analysed using the Hochberg procedure to control the familywise type I error rate across the three hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: The RESHAPE-HF2 trial will provide sound evidence on the MitraClip device and its effects in HF patients with FMR. The recruitment was recently completed with 506 randomized patients.

Stroke in heart failure in sinus rhythm: the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm for the primary outcome: first to occur of 84 incident ischemic strokes (IIS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Prespecified secondary analysis showed a 48% hazard ratio reduction (p = 0.005) for warfarin in IIS. Cardioembolism is likely the main pathogenesis of stroke in heart failure. We examined the IIS benefit for warfarin in more detail in post hoc secondary analyses. METHODS: We subtyped IIS into definite, possible and noncardioembolic using the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation method. Statistical tests, stratified by prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, were the conditional binomial for independent Poisson variables for rates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for stroke subtype and the van Elteren test for modified Rankin Score (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) distributions, and an exact test for proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 1,142 warfarin and 55 of 1,163 aspirin patients had IIS. The warfarin IIS rate (0.727/100 patient-years, PY) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100 PY, p = 0.003). Definite cardioembolic IIS was less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.22 vs. 0.55/100 PY, p = 0.012). Possible cardioembolic IIS tended to be less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.37 vs. 0.67/100 PY, p = 0.063) but noncardioembolic IIS showed no difference: 5 (0.12/100 PY) versus 6 (0.15/100 PY, p = 0.768). Among patients experiencing IIS, there were no differences by treatment arm in fatal IIS, baseline mRS, mRS 90 days after IIS, and change from baseline to post-IIS mRS. The warfarin arm showed a trend to a lower proportion of severe nonfatal IIS [mRS 3-5; 3/23 (13.0%) vs. 16/48 (33.3%), p = 0.086]. There was no difference in NIHSS at the time of stroke (p = 0.825) or in post-IIS mRS (p = 0.948) between cardioembolic, possible cardioembolic and noncardioembolic stroke including both warfarin and aspirin groups. CONCLUSIONS: The observed benefits in the reduction of IIS for warfarin compared to aspirin are most significant for cardioembolic IIS among patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IIS and possible cardioembolic IIS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin.