Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) Trial: Study Rationale and Design.

The Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA,NCT00911508)(1) trial is testing the hypothesis that the treatment strategy of percutaneous left atrial catheter ablation for the purpose of eliminating atrial fibrillation (AF) is superior to current state-of-the-art pharmacologic therapy. This international 140-center clinical trial was designed to randomize 2200 patients to a strategy of catheter ablation versus state-of-the-art rate or rhythm control drug therapy. Inclusion criteria include: 1) age> 65, or ≤65 with≥ 1 risk factor for stroke, 2) documented AF warranting treatment, and 3) eligibility for both catheter ablation and≥ 2 anti-arrhythmic or≥ 2 rate control drugs. Patients were followed every 3 to 6 months (median 4 years) and underwent repeat trans-telephonic monitoring, Holter monitoring, and CT/MR in a subgroup of patient studies to assess the impact of treatment on AF recurrence and atrial structure. With 1100 patients in each treatment arm, CABANA is projected to have 90% power for detecting a 30% relative reduction in the primary composite endpoint of total mortality, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary endpoints include total mortality; mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; a combination of mortality, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure or acute coronary artery events; cardiovascular death alone; and heart failure death, as well as AF recurrence, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. At a time when AF incidence is rising rapidly, CABANA will provide critical evidence with which to guide therapy and shape health care policy related to AF for years to come.

Charting a roadmap for heart failure biomarker studies.

Heart failure is a syndrome with a pathophysiological basis that can be traced to dysfunction in several interconnected molecular pathways. Identification of biomarkers of heart failure that allow measurement of the disease on a molecular level has resulted in enthusiasm for their use in prognostication and selection of appropriate therapies. However, despite considerable amounts of information available on numerous biomarkers, inconsistent research methodologies and lack of clinical correlations have made bench-to-bedside translations rare and left the literature with countless publications of varied quality. There is a need for a systematic and collaborative approach aimed at definitively studying the clinical benefits of novel biomarkers. In this review, on the basis of input from academia, industry, and governmental agencies, we propose a systematized approach based on adherence to specific quality measures for studies looking to augment current prediction model or use biomarkers to tailor therapeutics. We suggest that study quality, rather than results, should determine publication and propose a system for grading biomarker studies. We outline the need for collaboration between clinical investigators and statisticians to introduce more advanced statistical methodologies into the field of biomarkers that would allow for data from a large number of variables to be distilled into clinically actionable information. Lastly, we propose the creation of a heart failure biomarker consortium that would allow for a comprehensive list of biomarkers to be concomitantly analyzed in a pooled sample of randomized clinical trials and hypotheses to be generated for testing in biomarker-guided trials. Such a consortium could collaborate in sharing samples to identify biomarkers, undertake meta-analyses on completed trials, and spearhead clinical trials to test the clinical utility of new biomarkers.

Publication of trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

BACKGROUND: Rapid publication of clinical trials is essential in order for the findings to yield maximal benefits for public health and scientific progress. Factors affecting the speed of publication of the main results of government-funded trials have not been well characterized. METHODS: We analyzed 244 extramural randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions that were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). We selected trials for which data collection had been completed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. Our primary outcome measure was the time between completion of the trial and publication of the main results in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: As of March 31, 2012, the main results of 156 trials (64%) had been published (Kaplan-Meier median time to publication, 25 months, with 57% published within 30 months). Trials that focused on clinical events were published more rapidly than those that focused on surrogate measures (median, 9 months vs. 31 months; P<0.001). The only independent predictors of more rapid publication were a focus on clinical events rather than surrogate end points (adjusted publication rate ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.53; P=0.004) and higher costs of conducting the trial, up to a threshold of approximately $5 million (P<0.001). The 37 trials that focused on clinical events and cost at least $5 million accounted for 67% of the funds spent on clinical trials but received 82% of the citations. After adjustment of the analysis for a focus on clinical events and for cost, trial results that were classified as positive were published more quickly than those classified as negative. CONCLUSIONS: Results of less than two thirds of NHLBI-funded randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions were published within 30 months after completion of the trial. Trials that focused on clinical events were published more quickly than those that focused on surrogate end points. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Biomarker-guided therapies in heart failure: a forum for unified strategies.

The complexity of standard medical treatment for heart failure is growing, and such therapy typically involves 5 or more different medications. Given these pressures, there is increasing interest in harnessing cardiovascular biomarkers for clinical application to more effectively guide diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapy. It may be possible to realize an era of personalized medicine for heart failure treatment in which therapy is optimized and costs are controlled. The direct mechanistic coupling of biologic processes and therapies achieved in cancer treatment remains elusive in heart failure. Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses of biomarkers in heart failure have produced conflicting evidence. In this article, which comprises a summary of discussions from the Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum held in Paris, France, we offer a brief overview of the background and rationale for biomarker testing in heart failure, describe opportunities and challenges from a regulatory perspective, and summarize current positions from government agencies in the United States and European Union.

Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Studies in experimental and human heart failure suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors may enhance cardiovascular function and thus exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil compared with placebo on exercise capacity and clinical status in HFPEF. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 216 stable outpatients with HF, ejection fraction ≥50%, elevated N-terminal brain-type natriuretic peptide or elevated invasively measured filling pressures, and reduced exercise capacity. Participants were randomized from October 2008 through February 2012 at 26 centers in North America. Follow-up was through August 30, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sildenafil (n = 113) or placebo (n = 103) administered orally at 20 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks, followed by 60 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was change in peak oxygen consumption after 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance and a hierarchical composite clinical status score (range, 1-n, a higher value indicates better status; expected value with no treatment effect, 95) based on time to death, time to cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization, and change in quality of life for participants without cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, and 48% of patients were women. At baseline, median peak oxygen consumption (11.7 mL/kg/min) and 6-minute walk distance (308 m) were reduced. The median E/e' (16), left atrial volume index (44 mL/m2), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (41 mm Hg) were consistent with chronically elevated left ventricular filling pressures. At 24 weeks, median (IQR) changes in peak oxygen consumption (mL/kg/min) in patients who received placebo (-0.20 [IQR, -0.70 to 1.00]) or sildenafil (-0.20 [IQR, -1.70 to 1.11]) were not significantly different (P = .90) in analyses in which patients with missing week-24 data were excluded, and in sensitivity analysis based on intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing values (mean between-group difference, 0.01 mL/kg/min, [95% CI, -0.60 to 0.61]). The mean clinical status rank score was not significantly different at 24 weeks between placebo (95.8) and sildenafil (94.2) (P = .85). Changes in 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks in patients who received placebo (15.0 m [IQR, -26.0 to 45.0]) or sildenafil (5.0 m [IQR, -37.0 to 55.0]; P = .92) were also not significantly different. Adverse events occurred in 78 placebo patients (76%) and 90 sildenafil patients (80%). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 placebo patients (16%) and 25 sildenafil patients (22%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with HFPEF, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition with administration of sildenafil for 24 weeks, compared with placebo, did not result in significant improvement in exercise capacity or clinical status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00763867.

Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by persistent congestion and worsened renal function. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 188 patients with acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion to a strategy of stepped pharmacologic therapy (94 patients) or ultrafiltration (94 patients). The primary end point was the bivariate change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration was inferior to pharmacologic therapy with respect to the bivariate end point of the change in the serum creatinine level and body weight 96 hours after enrollment (P=0.003), owing primarily to an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration group. At 96 hours, the mean change in the creatinine level was -0.04±0.53 mg per deciliter (-3.5±46.9 µmol per liter) in the pharmacologic-therapy group, as compared with +0.23±0.70 mg per deciliter (20.3±61.9 µmol per liter) in the ultrafiltration group (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in weight loss 96 hours after enrollment between patients in the pharmacologic-therapy group and those in the ultrafiltration group (a loss of 5.5±5.1 kg [12.1±11.3 lb] and 5.7±3.9 kg [12.6±8.5 lb], respectively; P=0.58). A higher percentage of patients in the ultrafiltration group than in the pharmacologic-therapy group had a serious adverse event (72% vs. 57%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion, the use of a stepped pharmacologic-therapy algorithm was superior to a strategy of ultrafiltration for the preservation of renal function at 96 hours, with a similar amount of weight loss with the two approaches. Ultrafiltration was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00608491.).

Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.

Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. RESULTS: In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 µmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 µmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 µmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 µmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).

Rationale, design, and governance of Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION), a cardiovascular end point trial of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents in patients with arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis often requires long-term use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, the relative cardiovascular safety of these therapies remains uncertain. METHODS: The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION) trial will evaluate the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen. Approximately 20,000 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at high risk for, or with, established cardiovascular disease will be randomized in this double-blind, triple dummy, multinational, multicenter study. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The trial will continue until 762 primary events occur with at least 18 months follow-up. Noninferiority of any of the regimens will require a 97.5% upper CI of the hazard ratio (HR) < or =1.33 and point estimate < or =1.12 for both intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations. CONCLUSION: PRECISION, the first study of patients with high cardiovascular risk chronically treated with a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor or nonselective NSAID, will define the relative cardiovascular safety profile of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen and provide data to help guide NSAID use for pain management for this population.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation: report from a national heart, lung, and blood institute workshop.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel April 28 to 29, 2008, to identify gaps and recommend research strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF). The panel reviewed the existing basic scientific, epidemiological, and clinical literature about AF and identified opportunities to advance AF prevention research. After discussion, the panel proposed the following recommendations: (1) enhance understanding of the epidemiology of AF in the population by systematically and longitudinally investigating symptomatic and asymptomatic AF in cohort studies; (2) improve detection of AF by evaluating the ability of existing and emerging methods and technologies to detect AF; (3) improve noninvasive modalities for identifying key components of cardiovascular remodeling that promote AF, including genetic, fibrotic, autonomic, structural, and electrical remodeling markers; (4) develop additional animal models reflective of the pathophysiology of human AF; (5) conduct secondary analyses of already-completed clinical trials to enhance knowledge of potentially effective methods to prevent AF and routinely include AF as an outcome in ongoing and future cardiovascular studies; and (6) conduct clinical studies focused on secondary prevention of AF recurrence, which would inform future primary prevention investigations.

Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether stable, high-risk patients with persistent total occlusion of the infarct-related coronary artery identified after the currently accepted period for myocardial salvage has passed should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to receiving optimal medical therapy to reduce the risk of subsequent events. METHODS: We conducted a randomized study involving 2166 stable patients who had total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction and who met a high-risk criterion (an ejection fraction of <50% or proximal occlusion). Of these patients, 1082 were assigned to routine PCI and stenting with optimal medical therapy, and 1084 were assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial reinfarction, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure. RESULTS: The 4-year cumulative primary event rate was 17.2% in the PCI group and 15.6% in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio for death, reinfarction, or heart failure in the PCI group as compared with the medical therapy group, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.45; P=0.20). Rates of myocardial reinfarction (fatal and nonfatal) were 7.0% and 5.3% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.00; P=0.13). Rates of nonfatal reinfarction were 6.9% and 5.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.16; P=0.08); only six reinfarctions (0.6%) were related to assigned PCI procedures. Rates of NYHA class IV heart failure (4.4% vs. 4.5%) and death (9.1% vs. 9.4%) were similar. There was no interaction between treatment effect and any subgroup variable (age, sex, race or ethnic group, infarct-related artery, ejection fraction, diabetes, Killip class, and the time from myocardial infarction to randomization). CONCLUSIONS: PCI did not reduce the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or heart failure, and there was a trend toward excess reinfarction during 4 years of follow-up in stable patients with occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004562 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Randomized trial of percutaneous coronary intervention for subacute infarct-related coronary artery occlusion to achieve long-term patency and improve ventricular function: the Total Occlusion Study of Canada (TOSCA)-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we sought to determine whether opening a persistently occluded infarct-related artery (IRA) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients beyond the acute phase of myocardial infarction (MI) improves patency and indices of left ventricular (LV) size and function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between May 2000 and July 2005, 381 patients with an occluded native IRA 3 to 28 days after MI (median 10 days) were randomized to PCI with stenting (PCI) or optimal medical therapy alone. Repeat coronary and LV angiography was performed 1 year after randomization (n=332, 87%). Coprimary end points were IRA patency and change in LV ejection fraction. Secondary end points included change in LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indices and wall motion. PCI was successful in 92%. At 1 year, 83% of PCI versus 25% of medical therapy-only patients had a patent IRA (P<0.001). LV ejection fraction increased significantly (P<0.001) in both groups, with no between-group difference: PCI 4.2+/-8.9 (n=150) versus medical therapy 3.5+/-8.2 (n=136; P=0.47). Median change (interquartile range) in LV end-systolic volume index was -0.5 (-9.3 to 5.0) versus 1.0 (-5.7 to 7.3) mL/m2 (P=0.10), whereas median change (interquartile range) in LV end-diastolic volume index was 3.2 (-8.2 to 13.3) versus 5.3 (-4.6 to 23.2) mL/m2 (P=0.07) in the PCI (n=86) and medical therapy-only (n=76) groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PCI with stenting of a persistently occluded IRA in the subacute phase after MI effectively maintains long-term patency but has no effect on LV ejection fraction. On the basis of these findings and the lack of clinical benefit in the main Occluded Artery Trial, routine PCI is not recommended for stable patients with a persistently occluded IRA after MI.

Recommendations of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group on Future Direction in Cardiac Surgery.

New surgical procedures, imaging modalities, and medical devices have improved therapy for many patients and made treatment possible for others who have had few options in the past. In February 2004, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) Advisory Council proposed that the institute evaluate the status and future directions in cardiac surgery. In response to this recommendation, the NHLBI convened a working group of cardiac surgeons on May 7 and 8, 2004, to assess the state of cardiac surgery research, identify critical gaps in current knowledge, determine areas of opportunity, and obtain specific recommendations for future research activities. The working group discussed surgical revascularization, novel surgical approaches, valvular research directions, biotechnology and cell-based therapy, heart failure, imaging modalities, and barriers to clinical research and presents its recommendations here.