Withdrawal of pharmacological treatment for heart failure in patients with recovered dilated cardiomyopathy (TRED-HF): an open-label, pilot, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy whose symptoms and cardiac function have recovered often ask whether their medications can be stopped. The safety of withdrawing treatment in this situation is unknown. METHODS: We did an open-label, pilot, randomised trial to examine the effect of phased withdrawal of heart failure medications in patients with previous dilated cardiomyopathy who were now asymptomatic, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from less than 40% to 50% or greater, whose left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) had normalised, and who had an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) concentration less than 250 ng/L. Patients were recruited from a network of hospitals in the UK, assessed at one centre (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK), and randomly assigned (1:1) to phased withdrawal or continuation of treatment. After 6 months, patients in the continued treatment group had treatment withdrawn by the same method. The primary endpoint was a relapse of dilated cardiomyopathy within 6 months, defined by a reduction in LVEF of more than 10% and to less than 50%, an increase in LVEDV by more than 10% and to higher than the normal range, a two-fold rise in NT-pro-BNP concentration and to more than 400 ng/L, or clinical evidence of heart failure, at which point treatments were re-established. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02859311. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 51 patients were enrolled. 25 were randomly assigned to the treatment withdrawal group and 26 to continue treatment. Over the first 6 months, 11 (44%) patients randomly assigned to treatment withdrawal met the primary endpoint of relapse compared with none of those assigned to continue treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 45·7% [95% CI 28·5-67·2]; p=0·0001). After 6 months, 25 (96%) of 26 patients assigned initially to continue treatment attempted its withdrawal. During the following 6 months, nine patients met the primary endpoint of relapse (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 36·0% [95% CI 20·6-57·8]). No deaths were reported in either group and three serious adverse events were reported in the treatment withdrawal group: hospital admissions for non-cardiac chest pain, sepsis, and an elective procedure. INTERPRETATION: Many patients deemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy will relapse following treatment withdrawal. Until robust predictors of relapse are defined, treatment should continue indefinitely. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, Alexander Jansons Foundation, Royal Brompton Hospital and Imperial College London, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

The lung impedance monitoring in treatment of chronic heart failure (the LIMIT-CHF study).

AIMS: To assess the usefulness of intrathoracic impedance monitoring (IIM) alerts in guiding empirical treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients to prevent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and unplanned HF care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Chronic heart failure patients with OptiVol or CorVue capable implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were randomized to either the active group (IIM alarm turned on and diuretic dose increased by 50% for 1 week in the event of alarm sounding) or the control group (IIM alarm turned off). The primary endpoint was the number of HF hospitalizations per patient at 1 year. The NYHA class, 6MWT, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and MLWHF questionnaire score were collected at baseline and follow-up. Eighty patients were included and 71 reached 1-year follow-up. There were 1.7 ± 1.5 alerts in the active group and 1.1 ± 1.0 in the control group, P = 0.07. In the active group, 61% of alerts led to a diuretic dose increase. There was a total of 11 HF hospitalizations in the active group vs. 6 in the control group without significant differences in the number of episodes per patient (0.3 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4, P = 0.95). There were no unplanned HF visits in the active group vs. 0.1 ± 0.3 per patient in the control group, P = 0.08. The total MLWHF scores were significantly increased at the final follow-up in the control group, whereas a trend towards reduction was observed in the active group. CONCLUSION: In this study, an empirical HF treatment guided by IIM alerts did not reduce emergency treatment of HF. However, it seems to have a positive impact on quality of life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01320007.