Elizabeth Galle

Predictors of Sudden Cardiac Death and Appropriate Shock in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial

Background— The factors that determine the risk for sudden death or implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) therapies are largely unknown. Methods and Results— We hypothesized that clinical measures of heart failure severity and the presence of comorbid conditions would predict the risk of malignant arrhythmias in the 1520 patients enrolled in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial. Outcomes in the CRT group after implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy were also evaluated. The CRT-defibrillator device reduced the risk of sudden death by 56% compared with drug therapy (17 of 595 [2.9%] versus 18 of 308 [5.8%], P<0.02). CRT therapy was not associated with sudden death risk reduction (48 of 617 [7.8%]). Other factors associated with reduced sudden death risk were left ventricular ejection fraction >20% (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.87]; P=0.01), QRS duration >160 ms (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.997]; P=0.05), and female gender (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.94]; P=0.003). The risk for sudden death was increased by advanced New York Heart Association class IV heart failure (HR, 2.62 [95% CI, 1.61 to 4.26]; P<0.011) and renal dysfunction (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.06 to 2.69]; P=0.03). An appropriate shock was experienced in 88 (15%) of the 595 CTR-D patients. In the CRT-defibrillator patients, female gender (HR, 0.54 [95 % CI, 0.31 to 0.94]; P=0.03) and use of neurohormonal antagonists were associated with reduced risk. Class IV heart failure status increased risk. Appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy was positively associated with risk of death or all-cause hospitalization (HR, 1.57; P<0.002), pump failure death or hospitalization (HR, 2.35; P<0.001), and sudden death (HR, 2.99; P=0.03), but not total mortality (HR, 1.3; P=0.28). Conclusions— In CRT candidates, sudden cardiac death risk is associated with higher New York Heart Association class and renal dysfunction. In CRT-defibrillator recipients, reduction in the risk of an appropriate shock is associated with medical therapy with neurohormonal antagonists, female gender, and New York Heart Association functional class III versus IV clinical status. Shock therapy was associated with worse outcome.

Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator on Survival and Hospitalizations in Patients With New York Heart Association Class IV Heart Failure

Background— Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) alone or combined with an implantable defibrillator (CRT-D) has been shown to improve exercise capacity and quality of life and to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and mortality in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III and IV HF. There is concern that the device procedure may destabilize these very ill class IV patients. We sought to examine the outcomes of NYHA class IV patients enrolled in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial to assess the potential benefits of CRT and CRT-D. Methods and Results— The COMPANION trial randomized 1520 patients with NYHA class III and IV HF to optimal medical therapy, CRT, or CRT-D. In the class IV patients (n=217), the primary end point of time to death or hospitalization for any cause was significantly improved by both CRT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.94; P=0.02) and CRT-D (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90; P=0.01). Time to all-cause death and HF hospitalization was also significantly improved in both CRT (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.87; P=0.01) and CRT-D (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.75; P=0.001) Time to all-cause death trended to an improvement in both CRT (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.10; P=0.11) and CRT-D (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.03; P=0.06). Time to sudden death appeared to be significantly reduced in the CRT-D group (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.90; P=0.03). There was a nonsignificant reduction in time to HF deaths for both CRT (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.37; P=0.28) and CRT-D (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.52; P=0.48). Conclusions— CRT and CRT-D significantly improve time to all-cause mortality and hospitalizations in NYHA class IV patients, with a trend for improved mortality. These devices should be considered in ambulatory NYHA class IV HF patients similar to those enrolled in COMPANION.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Reduces the Risk of Hospitalizations in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Results From the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Trial

Background— In the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial, 1520 patients with advanced heart failure were assigned in a 1:2:2 ratio to optimal pharmacological therapy or optimal pharmacological therapy plus cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P) or CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D). Use of CRT-P and CRT-D was associated with a significant reduction in combined risk of death or all-cause hospitalizations. Because mortality also was significantly reduced (optimal pharmacological therapy versus CRT-D only), an assessment of the true reduction in hospitalization rates must consider the competing risk of death and varying follow-up times. Methods and Results— To overcome the challenges of comparing treatment groups, we used a nonparametric test of right-censored recurrent events that accounts for multiple hospital admissions, differential follow-up time between treatment groups, and death as a competing risk. An end-point committee adjudicated and classified all hospitalizations. Compared with optimal pharmacological therapy, CRT-P and CRT-D were associated with a 21% and 25% reduction in all-cause, 34% and 37% reduction in cardiac, and 44% and 41% reduction in heart failure hospital admissions per patient-year of follow-up, respectively. Similar reductions were seen in hospitalization days per patient-year. The reduction in hospitalization rate for heart failure in the CRT groups appeared within days of randomization and remained sustained. Noncardiac hospitalization rates were not different between groups. Conclusion— Use of CRT with or without a defibrillator in advanced heart failure patients was associated with marked reductions in all-cause, cardiac, and heart failure hospitalization rates in an analysis that accounted for the competing risk of mortality and unequal follow-up time.

Influence of Left Ventricular Lead Location on Outcomes in the COMPANION Study

Introduction: There are no randomized controlled trial data that evaluate mortality and hospitalization rates in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients based on left ventricular (LV) lead location. We analyzed the event‐driven outcomes of mortality and hospitalization as well as functional outcomes including Functional Class, Quality‐of‐Life, and 6‐minute walk distance in 1,520 patients enrolled in the COMPANION study of CRT versus optimal medical therapy.

Impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy on exercise performance, functional capacity, and quality of life in systolic heart failure with QRS prolongation: COMPANION trial sub-study.

BACKGROUND A total of 405 participants in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial were prospectively enrolled in an exercise sub-study designed to study the influence of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on measures of exercise capacity, functional capacity, and quality of life (QOL). METHODS AND RESULTS Substudy eligibility included New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional Class III or IV heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.35, QRS interval of > or =120 ms, normal sinus rhythm, a heart failure hospitalization (or equivalent) within 1 year, a peak VO2 < or =22 mL x kg x min, the ability to walk 150 to 425 meters in 6 minutes, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity > or =50%, and no clinical indication for a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Patients were randomized in a 1:4 ratio to optimal medical therapy (OPT) or to OPT plus CRT. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (peak VO2 and 6-minute walk distance [6MWD]) and assessment of NYHA functional class and QOL were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of assigned therapy. There was no significant improvement in peak VO2 at 6 months in the CRT group compared with the OPT group (+0.63 mL x kg x min) by unadjusted analysis (P = .05) or by analyses adjusted for missing data. Thus the primary end point of the study was not met. There was significantly greater improvement in the 6MWD in the CRT group compared with the OPT group at both 3 and 6 months by both statistical methods (P < or = .045). Likewise, a greater proportion of CRT patients improved by 1 or more NYHA functional classes (P < .01) at 3 months and had better QOL scores (P < .01) at 3 and 6 months compared with the OPT patients. Baseline peak VO2 predicted clinical events (time to death, time to death or first hospitalization, or time to death and first heart failure hospitalization: P < .05) in CRT participants. CONCLUSION CRT patients with moderate to advanced symptoms of systolic heart failure and prolonged QRS intervals benefit from the addition of CRT to OPT in terms of exercise capacity, functional status, and QOL. CRT should be considered standard therapy in this select group of heart failure patients.

Does cardiac resynchronization therapy provide unrecognized benefit in patients with prolonged PR intervals? The impact of restoring atrioventricular synchrony: An analysis from the COMPANION Trial

BACKGROUND The influence of PR prolongation on outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether PR prolongation predicts outcomes in potential CRT candidates and whether CRT benefits these candidates regardless of baseline PR interval. METHODS A database of 1520 patients fulfilling criteria for CRT implant (the COMPANION Trial) was examined. Patients assigned to normal (PR < 200 ms) or prolonged (PR ≥ 200 ms) cohorts were compared within the optimal pharmacologic therapy (OPT) and CRT groups regarding an endpoint of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. CRT was compared with OPT in normal and prolonged PR interval groups. An interaction test was performed to determine whether CRT influenced outcome as a function of PR interval. RESULTS PR prolongation was present in 52% of COMPANION subjects. Randomization to CRT was associated with a reduction in the endpoint, but the strength of the association was greater for those with prolonged PR (hazard ratio = 0.54; P <.01) versus normal PR (hazard ratio = 0.71; P = .02) intervals. CRT (vs OPT) was associated with reduction in the endpoint for subjects with normal or prolonged PR intervals. Reduction in relative risk (CRT vs OPT) was 29% (P = .02) for those with normal PR intervals but was 46% (P <.01) for those with PR prolongation. No interaction was detected between PR interval cohort and treatment (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS PR prolongation may affect mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with systolic dysfunction, heart failure, and wide QRS complexes. The effect of PR prolongation may be attenuated by CRT.

Statin Use Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Receiving Resynchronization Therapy

It is unknown whether statin use improves survival in patients with advanced chronic heart failure (HF) receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The authors retrospectively assessed the effect of statin use on survival in patients with advanced chronic HF receiving CRT alone (CRT-P) or CRT with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy (CRT-D) in 1520 patients with advanced chronic HF from the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial database. Six hundred three patients (40%) were taking statins at baseline. All-cause mortality was 18% in the statin group and 22% in the no statin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.07; P=.15). In a multivariable analysis controlling for significant baseline characteristics and use of CRT-P/CRT-D, statin use was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction in mortality (HR, 0.77; CI, 0.61-0.97; P=.03). Statin use is associated with improved survival in patients with advanced chronic HF receiving CRT. No survival benefit was seen in patients receiving statins and optimal pharmacologic therapy without CRT.

First granted example of novel FDA trial design under Expedited Access Pathway for premarket approval: BeAT-HF

Background The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiated the Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) to accelerate approval of novel therapies targeting unmet needs for life‐threatening conditions. EAP allows for the possibility of initial FDA approval using intermediate end points with postapproval demonstration of improved outcomes. Objective Describe the EAP process using the BeAT‐HF trial as a case study. Methods BeAT‐HF will examine the safety and effectiveness of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction using an Expedited and Extended Phase design. In the Expedited Phase, BAT plus guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) will be compared at 6 months postimplant to GDMT alone using 3 intermediate end points: 6‐minute hall walk distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and N‐terminal pro–B‐type natriuretic peptide. The rate of heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality will be compared between the arms to evaluate early trending using predictive probability modeling. Sample size of 264 patients randomized 1:1 to BAT + GDMT versus GDMT alone provides 81% power for the Expedited Phase intermediate end points. For the Extended Phase, the heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality end point is based on an expected event rate of 0.4 events/patient/year in the GDMT arm. With an adaptive sample size selection design for robustness to inaccurate assumptions, a sample size of 480‐960 randomized patients followed ≥2 years allows detecting a 30% reduction in the primary end point with a power of 97.5%. Conclusion Through a unique collaboration with FDA under the EAP, the BeAT‐HF trial design allows for the possibility of approval of BAT, initially for symptom relief and subsequently for outcomes improvement.