Background and objectives The calcimimetic cinacalcet reduced the risk of death or cardiovascular (CV) events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe secondary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) who were receiving hemodialysis. To determine whether the lower risk in younger patients might be due to lower baseline CV risk and more frequent use of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone (kidney transplantation, parathyroidectomy, and commercial cinacalcet use), this study examined the effects of cinacalcet in older ($65 years, n=1005) and younger (,65 years, n=2878) patients.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Evaluation of Cinacalcet HCl Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events (EVOLVE) was a global, multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled trial in 3883 prevalent patients on hemodialysis, whose outcomes included death, major CV events, and development of severe unremitting HPT. The age subgroup analysis was prespecified.Results Older patients had higher baseline prevalence of diabetes mellitus and CV comorbidity. Annualized rates of kidney transplantation and parathyroidectomy were .3-fold higher in younger relative to older patients and were more frequent in patients randomized to placebo. In older patients, the adjusted relative hazard (95% confidence interval) for the primary composite (CV) end point (cinacalcet versus placebo) was 0.70 (0.60 to 0.81); in younger patients, the relative hazard was 0.97 (0.86 to 1.09). Corresponding adjusted relative hazards for mortality were 0.68 (0.51 to 0.81) and 0.99 (0.86 to 1.13). Reduction in the risk of severe unremitting HPT was similar in both groups. ConclusionsIn the EVOLVE trial, cinacalcet decreased the risk of death and of major CV events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe HPT who were receiving hemodialysis. Effect modification by age may be partly explained by differences in underlying CV risk and differential application of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone.

Aims Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improves symptoms and exercise tolerance and reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalizations over 6‐month follow‐up in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms, QRS < 130 ms and 25% ≤ left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% (FIX‐HF‐5C study). The current prospective registry study (CCM‐REG) aimed to assess the longer‐term impact of CCM on hospitalizations and mortality in real‐world experience in this same population. Methods and results A total of 140 patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% receiving CCM therapy (CCM‐REG25‐45) for clinical indications were included. Cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and NYHA class were assessed over 2 years. Mortality was tracked through 3 years and compared with predictions by the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM). A separate analysis was performed on patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% (CCM‐REG35‐45) and 25% ≤ LVEF < 35% (CCM‐REG25‐34). Hospitalizations decreased by 75% (from 1.2/patient‐year the year before, to 0.35/patient‐year during the 2 years following CCM, P < 0.0001) in CCM‐REG25‐45 and by a similar amount in CCM‐REG35‐45 (P < 0.0001) and CCM‐REG25‐34. MLHFQ and NYHA class improved in all three cohorts, with progressive improvements over time (P < 0.002). Three‐year survival in CCM‐REG25‐45 (82.8%) and CCM‐REG24‐34 (79.4%) were similar to those predicted by SHFM (76.7%, P = 0.16; 78.0%, P = 0.81, respectively) and was better than predicted in CCM‐REG35‐45 (88.0% vs. 74.7%, P = 0.046). Conclusion In real‐world experience, CCM produces results similar to those of previous studies in subjects with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% and QRS < 130 ms; cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations are reduced and MLHFQ and NYHA class are improved. Overall mortality was comparable to that predicted by the SHFM but was lower than predicted in patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45%.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) has emerged as a valuable tool to temporarily protect patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). The aim of this study was to determine the value of the WCD for therapy optimization of heart failure patients.MethodsOne hundred five consecutive patients that received WCD between 4/2012 and 9/2016 were included in the study. All patients were followed for clinical outcome and echocardiographic parameters during WCD therapy and had continued follow-up after WCD therapy, irrespective of subsequent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.ResultsThe most common indication for WCD were newly diagnosed ischemic (ICM) or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. Mean WCD wear time was 68.8 ± 50.4 days with a mean daily use of 21.5 ± 3.5 h. Five patients (4.8%) received a total of five appropriate WCD shocks.During WCD wear, patients with ICM and NICM showed significant improvement in LVEF, reducing the proportion of patients with a need for primary preventive ICD implantation to 54.8% (ICM) and 48.8% (NICM). An ICD was finally implanted in 51.4% of the study patients (24 trans-venous ICDs, 30 subcutaneous ICDs).After discontinuation of WCD therapy, all patients were followed for a mean of 18.6 ± 12.3 months. 5.6% of patients with implanted ICDs received appropriate therapies. No patient with subcutaneous ICD needed change to a trans-venous device. None of the patients without an implanted ICD suffered from ventricular tachyarrhythmias and no patient died suddenly.In patients with NICM a significant LVEF improvement was observed during long-term follow-up (from 34.8 ± 11.1% to 41.0 ± 10.2%).ConclusionsWCD therapy successfully bridged all patients to either LVEF recovery or ICD implantation. Following WCD, ICD implantation could be avoided in almost half of the patients. In selected patients, prolongation of WCD therapy beyond 3 months might further prevent unnecessary ICD implantation. The WCD as an external monitoring system contributed important information to optimize device selection in patients that needed ICD implantation.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, long-term data are sparse. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the incidence of life-threatening arrhythmias consisting of ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation before and after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. Methods: Out of 12,000 patients with HFrEF from 2016–2018, 148 patients were newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, but the long-term data of only 127 patients were available and included in this study. Results: Patients with an average age of 66.8 ± 12.1 had a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% (interquartile range (IQR) 5.00–45.00) and 30% (IQR 10.00–55.00, p < 0.0005) before and after sacubitril/valsartan treatment, respectively. Systolic blood pressure decreased from 127.93 ± 22.01 to 118.36 ± 20.55 mmHg (p = 0.0035) at 6 months of follow-up. However, in 59 patients with a long-term outcome of 12 months, ventricular arrhythmias persistently increased (ventricular fibrillation from 27.6 to 29.3%, ventricular tachycardia (VT) from 12% to 13.8%, and nonsustained VT from 26.6 to 33.3%). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan does not reduce the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in chronic HFrEF patients over 12 months of follow-up.

No abstract

Background: The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is available for patients at high risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) when immediate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not possible or indicated. Patient selection remains challenging especially in primary prevention. Long-term data on these patients is still lacking. Methods: 153 patients were included in this study. They were prescribed the WCD between April 2012 and March 2019 at the University Medical Center, Mannheim, Germany. The mean follow-up period was 36.2 ± 15.6 months. Outcome data, including all-cause mortality, were analyzed by disease etiology and ICD implantation following WCD use. Results: We analyzed 56 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, 70 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, 16 patients with prior need for ICD/CRT-D (device for cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator) explanation, 8 patients with acute myocarditis and 3 patients with congenital diseases. 58% of the patients did not need ICD/CRT-D implantation after WCD use. 4% of all patients suffered from appropriate WCD shocks. 2 of these patients (33%) experienced appropriate ICD shocks after implantation due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Long-term follow-up shows a good overall survival. All-cause mortality was 10%. There was no significant difference between patients with or without subsequent ICD implantation (p = 0.48). Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy numerically showed a higher long-term mortality than patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (14% vs. 6%, p = 0.13) and received significantly more ICD shocks after implantation (10% of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients versus 3% of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients, p = 0.04). All patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias during WCD use or after ICD implantation survived the follow-up period. Conclusion: Following WCD use, ICD implantation could be avoided in 58% of patients. Long-term follow-up shows good overall survival. The majority of all patients did not suffer from WCD shocks nor did receive ICD shocks after subsequent implantation. Patient selection regarding predictive conditions on long-term risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias needs further risk stratification.