Efficacy of Semaglutide by Sex in Obesity-Related Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: STEP-HFpEF Trials.

BACKGROUND: More women than men have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess baseline characteristics and treatment effect of semaglutide by sex across the STEP-HFpEF (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity) program. METHODS: In a prespecified secondary analysis of pooled data from STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes), patients with heart failure (HF), left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) <90 points were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or matched placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary endpoints (KCCQ-CSS change and percentage change in body weight) and confirmatory secondary endpoints (6-minute walking distance [6MWD] change; hierarchical composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, HF events, changes in KCCQ-CSS, and 6MWD; and C-reactive protein) were compared between sexes. RESULTS: Of 1,145 patients, 570 (49.7%) were women. Women had higher body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, C-reactive protein, and worse HF symptoms, and were less likely to have atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease vs men. Semaglutide improved KCCQ-CSS regardless of sex (mean difference in women +7.6 points [95% CI: 4.5-10.7 points]; men +7.5 points [95% CI: 4.3-10.6 points]; P interaction = 0.94) but reduced body weight more in women (mean difference in women -9.6% [95% CI: -10.9% to -8.4%]; men -7.2% [95% CI: -8.4% to -6.0%]; P interaction = 0.006). Semaglutide improved 6MWD (P interaction = 0.21) and the hierarchical composite endpoint (P interaction = 0.66) in both sexes. Fewer serious adverse events were reported with semaglutide vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide 2.4 mg reduced body weight to a greater extent in women, and produced similar improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, regardless of sex. (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity [STEP-HFpEF]; NCT04788511; and Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes [STEP HFpEF DM]; NCT04916470).

Semaglutide and NYHA Functional Class in Obesity-Related Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The STEP-HFpEF Program.

BACKGROUND: In the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and HFpEF (STEP-HFpEF) program, semaglutide improved heart failure (HF)-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Whether semaglutide improves functional status, as assessed by NYHA functional class, is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the effects of semaglutide on change in NYHA functional class over time. We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and bodyweight and other trial endpoints across baseline NYHA functional class categories. METHODS: This was a prespecified analysis of pooled data from 2 international, double-blind, randomized trials (STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF type 2 diabetes [STEP-HFpEF DM], comprising the STEP-HFpEF program), which collectively randomized 1,145 participants with obesity-related HFpEF to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. The outcome of interest for this analysis was the change in NYHA functional class (baseline to 52 weeks). We also investigated the effects of semaglutide on the dual primary, confirmatory secondary, and selected exploratory endpoints according to baseline NYHA functional class. RESULTS: More semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had an improvement in NYHA functional class (32.6% vs 21.5%, respectively; OR: 2.20 [95% CI: 1.62-2.99; P < 0.001]) and fewer semaglutide-treated patients experienced deterioration in NYHA functional class (2.09% vs 5.24%, respectively; OR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.19-0.70; P = 0.003]) at 52 weeks. Semaglutide (vs placebo) improved the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CCS) across NYHA functional class categories; this was especially pronounced in those in NYHA functional classes III/IV (10.5 points [95% CI: 6.6-14.4 points]) vs NYHA functional class II (6.0 points [95% CI: 3.4-8.6 points]) (P interaction = 0.06). By contrast, the degree of reduction in bodyweight was similar with semaglutide vs placebo regardless of baseline NYHA functional class category (NYHA functional class II, -8.4% [95% CI: -9.4% to -7.3%]; NYHA functional classes III/IV, -8.3% [95% CI: -9.9% to -6.8%]; P interaction = 0.96). Semaglutide consistently improved 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), the hierarchical composite endpoint (death, HF events, differences in KCCQ-CSS, and 6MWD changes), and reduced C-reactive protein and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide across NYHA functional class categories (all P interactions = NS). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, fewer semaglutide-treated than placebo-treated patients had a deterioration, and more had an improvement, in NYHA functional class at 52 weeks. Semaglutide consistently improved HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced bodyweight and biomarkers of inflammation and congestion in all NYHA functional class categories. Semaglutide-mediated improvements in health status were especially large in patients with NYHA functional classes III/IV. (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity; NCT04788511) (Research Study to Look at How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure, Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes; NCT04916470).

Semaglutide and Diuretic Use in Obesity-Related Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Pooled Analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the STEP-HFpEF trial program, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. METHODS: In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n=1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: At baseline, across no diuretic (n=220), non-loop diuretic only (n=223), and loop diuretic (<40 [n=219], 40 [n=309], and >40 [n=174] mg/day furosemide-equivalents) groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from -8.8% [95% CI -10.3, -6.3] to -6.9% [95% CI -9.1, -4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P=0.39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P=0.042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6-min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P=0.24-0.92). Safety also favored semaglutide versus placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P<0.0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P<0.001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide versus placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.

Economic Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low Surgical Risk: Results from the PARTNER 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: 2021 update.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has been utilized as an adjunct to anticoagulant therapy in selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for approximately 30 years. CDT used to be limited to patients with DVT causing acute limb threat and those exhibiting failure of initial anticoagulation, but has expanded over time. Randomized trials evaluating the first-line use of CDT for proximal DVT have demonstrated that CDT does not produce a major reduction in the occurrence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and that it is poorly suited for elderly patients and those with limited thrombus extent or major risk factors for bleeding. However, CDT does offer selected patients with acute iliofemoral DVT improvement in reducing early DVT symptoms, in achieving reduction in PTS severity, and in producing an improvement in health-related quality of life (QOL). Clinical practice guidelines from medical and surgical societies are now largely aligned with the randomized trial results. This review offers the reader an update on the results of recently completed clinical trials, and additional guidance on appropriate selection of patients with DVT for catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy.

Five-Year Health Status After Self-expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: In the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups. Objective: To describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral). Results: Of 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Association Between Hospital Debriefing Practices With Adherence to Resuscitation Process Measures and Outcomes for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Background Identifying actionable resuscitation practices that vary across hospitals could improve adherence to process measures or outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We sought to examine whether hospital debriefing frequency after IHCA varies across hospitals and whether hospitals which routinely perform debriefing have higher rates of process-of-care compliance or survival. Methods We conducted a nationwide survey of hospital resuscitation practices in April of 2018, which were then linked to data from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation national registry for IHCA. Hospitals were categorized according to their reported frequency of debriefing immediately after IHCA; rarely (0%-20% of all IHCA cases), occasionally (21%-80%), and frequently (81%-100%). Hospital-level rates of timely defibrillation (≤2 minutes), epinephrine administration (≤5 minutes), survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival were comparted for patients with IHCA from 2015 to 2017. Results Overall, there were 193 hospitals comprising 44 477 IHCA events. Mean patient age was 65±16, 41% were females, and 68% were of White race. Across hospitals, 84 (43.5%) rarely performed debriefings immediately after an IHCA, 82 (42.5%) performed debriefing sessions occasionally, and 27 (14.0%) performed debriefing frequently. There was no association between higher reported debriefing frequency and hospital rates of timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration. Mean hospital rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge were similar across debriefing frequency groups (rarely 25.6%; occasionally 26.0%; frequently 25.2%, P=0.72), as were hospital rates of risk-adjusted return of spontaneous circulation (rarely 72.2%; occasionally 73.0%; frequently 70.0%, P=0.06) and neurologically intact survival (rarely 21.9%, occasionally 22.2%, frequently 21.1%, P=0.75). Conclusions In a large contemporary nationwide quality improvement registry, hospitals varied widely in how often they conducted debriefings immediately after IHCA. However, hospital debriefing frequency was not associated with better adherence to timely delivery of epinephrine or defibrillation or higher rates of IHCA survival.

Health Status After Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Heart Failure and Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: COAPT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) led to reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and improved survival in patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) on maximally-tolerated medical therapy. Given the advanced age and comorbidities of these patients, improvement in health status is also an important treatment goal. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the health status outcomes of patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR treated with TMVr versus standard care. METHODS: The COAPT trial randomized patients with HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR to TMVr (n = 302) or standard care (n = 312). Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey. The primary health status endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS; range 0 to 100; higher = better; minimum clinically important difference = 5 points). RESULTS: At baseline, patients had substantially impaired health status (mean KCCQ-OS 52.4 ± 23.0). While health status was unchanged over time in the standard care arm, patients randomized to TMVr demonstrated substantial improvement in the KCCQ-OS at 1 month (mean between-group difference 15.9 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.3 to 19.5 points), with only slight attenuation of this benefit through 24 months (mean between-group difference 12.8 points; 95% CI: 7.5 to 18.2 points). At 24 months, 36.4% of TMVr patients were alive with a moderately large (≥10-point) improvement versus 16.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001), for a number needed to treat of 5.1 patients (95% CI: 3.6 to 8.7 patients). TMVr patients also reported better generic health status at each timepoint (24-month mean difference in SF-36 summary scores: physical 3.6 points; 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.8 points; mental 3.6 points; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.4 points). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic HF and 3+ to 4+ secondary MR receiving maximally-tolerated medical therapy, edge-to-edge TMVr resulted in substantial early and sustained health status improvement compared with medical therapy alone. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Blood Pressure and Arterial Load After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is often characterized by the residual valve obstruction. Our objective was to determine whether higher systemic arterial afterload-as reflected in blood pressure, pulsatile and resistive load-is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Total, pulsatile, and resistive arterial load were measured in 2141 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the PARTNER I trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) who had systolic blood pressure (SBP) and an echocardiogram obtained 30 days after TAVR. The primary end point was 30-day to 1-year all-cause mortality. Lower SBP at 30 days after TAVR was associated with higher mortality (20.0% for SBP 100-129 mm Hg versus 12.0% for SBP 130-170 mm Hg; P<0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment, was consistent across subgroups, and confirmed in sensitivity analyses. In adjusted models that included SBP, higher total and pulsatile arterial load were associated with increased mortality (P<0.001 for all), but resistive load was not. Patients with low 30-day SBP and high pulsatile load had a 3-fold higher mortality than those with high 30-day SBP and low pulsatile load (26.1% versus 8.1%; hazard ratio, 3.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.36-5.55). CONCLUSIONS: Even after relief of valve obstruction in patients with aortic stenosis, there is an independent association between post-TAVR blood pressure, systemic arterial load, and mortality. Blood pressure goals in patients with a history of aortic stenosis may need to be redefined. Increased pulsatile arterial load, rather than blood pressure, may be a target for adjunctive medical therapy to improve outcomes after TAVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Health Status After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Increased Surgical Risk: Results From the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). BACKGROUND: In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. RESULTS: Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire's physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).