Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
Little evidence exists regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of atrial shunt devices in heart failure.
Does an atrial shunt device improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and ejection fraction >40% compared to sham control?
Does an atrial shunt device improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and ejection fraction >40% compared to sham control?
Long-term follow-up of atrial shunting in HFpEF/HFmrEF shows no overall benefit but suggests potential efficacy in a specific responder phenotype, albeit with a higher risk of ischemic stroke.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low adverse events up to 5 years support atrial shunt safety in HFpEF; leaves open efficacy confirmation in responder subgroups.
BACKGROUND: There is a little evidence regarding long-term safety and efficacy for atrial shunt devices in heart failure (HF). METHODS: The REDUCE LAP-HF I (n = 44) and II (n = 621) trials (RCT-I and -II) were multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trials of patients with HF and ejection fraction >40%. Outcome data were analyzed from RCT-I, a mechanistic trial with 5-year follow-up, and RCT-II, a pivotal trial identifying a responder group (n = 313) defined by exercise PVR <1.74 WU and no cardiac rhythm management device with 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 5 years in RCT I, there were no differences in cardiovascular (CV) mortality, HF events, embolic stroke, or new-onset atrial fibrillation between groups. After 3 years in RCT II, there was no difference in the primary outcome (hierarchical composite of CV mortality, stroke, HF events, and KCCQ) between shunt and sham in the overall trial. Compared to sham, those with responder characteristics in RCT-II had a better outcome with shunt (win ratio 1.6 [95% CI 1.2-2.2], P = .006; 44% reduction in HF events [shunt 9 vs. control 16 per 100 patient-years], P = .005; and greater improvement in KCCQ overall summary score [+17.9 ± 20.0 vs. +7.6 ± 20.4], P < .001), while nonresponders had significantly more HF events. Shunt treatment at 3 years was associated with a higher rate of ischemic stroke (3.2% vs. 0%, 95% CI 2%-6.1%, P = .032) and lower incidence of worsening kidney dysfunction (10.7% vs. 19.3%, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: With up to 5 years of follow up, adverse events were low in patients receiving atrial shunts. In the responder group, atrial shunt treatment was associated with a significantly lower HF event rate and improved KCCQ compared to sham through 3 years of follow-up. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02600234, NCT03088033.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Litwin et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: