Key result
The interatrial shunt device is a promising therapy designed to reduce left atrial pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with early studies demonstrating safety and potential efficacy.
Why the study?
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction accounts for approximately half of heart failure cases, but lacks clinically effective evidence-based therapies.
Does an interatrial shunt device improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
Does an interatrial shunt device improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
Interatrial shunt devices represent a promising, device-based therapeutic approach to alleviate elevated left atrial pressure in patients with HFpEF, with pivotal trials currently underway.
Should not change practice in HFpEF; leaves open whether interatrial shunting improves outcomes in ongoing pivotal trials.
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for approximately half of the current burden of HF, and the prevalence is continuing to rise. In contrast to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) there are no clinically effective evidence based therapies for HFpEF. The principal pathophysiologic disorder is an elevation of left atrial pressure, most notable during physical activity, which results from impaired left ventricular diastolic reserve, and increased left atrial stiffness. This review outlines the clinical development of a potential device based therapy for HFpEF, the interatrial shunt device (IASD).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaye et al. (2019) conducted a review in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Interatrial Shunt Device (IASD) was evaluated. The interatrial shunt device is a promising therapy designed to reduce left atrial pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with early studies demonstrating safety and potential efficacy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: