Key result
Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation yields ~5-fold win ratio over control in HF with central sleep apnoea.
Why the study?
Does transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation improve a hierarchical composite of survival, heart failure hospitalization, and health status in heart failure patients with central sleep apnoea?
RCT (n=91)
Does transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation improve a hierarchical composite of survival, heart failure hospitalization, and health status in heart failure patients with central sleep apnoea?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation significantly improves a hierarchical composite of mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and health status in heart failure patients with central sleep apnea.
AIMS: Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is present in 20-40% of heart failure (HF) patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and health status. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) is an available treatment for CSA in HF patients. The impact on HF outcomes is incompletely understood. The win ratio (WR) allows inclusion of multiple endpoint components, considers the relative severity of each component, and permits assessment of recurrent events in evaluation of clinical benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: A WR hierarchy was pre-defined for analysis of the HF subgroup of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial. The analysis used three hierarchical components to compare all treated to all control subjects: longest survival, lowest HF hospitalization rate, and ≥2-category difference in Patient Global Assessment at 6 months. Sensitivity analyses were performed substituting Epworth Sleepiness Scale and 4% oxygen desaturation index for the third component, and a 4-component WR hierarchy was also evaluated. Ninety-one HF subjects, 43 receiving TPNS and 48 in the control group, provided 2064 pairwise comparisons. More patients treated with TPNS experienced clinical benefit compared with control (WR 4.92, 95% confidence interval 2.27-10.63, P < 0.0001). There were 1111 (53.83%) winning pairwise comparisons for the treatment group and 226 (10.95%) for the control group. Similarly, large WRs were observed for all additional WR hierarchies. CONCLUSIONS: This WR analysis of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial suggests that TPNS may be superior to untreated CSA in HF patients with CSA using a hierarchical clinical benefit endpoint composed of mortality, HF hospitalization, and health status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with central sleep apnoea (n=91). Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation vs. Control (untreated central sleep apnoea) was evaluated on Hierarchical clinical benefit endpoint composed of longest survival, lowest HF hospitalization rate, and ≥2-category difference in Patient Global Assessment at 6 months (WR 4.92, 95% CI 2.27-10.63, p=< 0.0001). Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation was superior to control for a hierarchical clinical benefit endpoint in heart failure patients with central sleep apnoea (WR 4.92; 95% CI 2.27-10.63; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: