1 / 75

CARE-HF CA rdiac RE synchronization in H eart F ailure Clinical Study

CARE-HF CA rdiac RE synchronization in H eart F ailure Clinical Study. Independent trial by Clinical Community Sponsored by Medtronic. EP specialists understand that: Drugs (ACEIs, BB, Aldo Antagonists) have a profound impact on HF progression and mortality

jana
Download Presentation

CARE-HF CA rdiac RE synchronization in H eart F ailure Clinical Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CARE-HF CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart FailureClinical Study Independent trial by Clinical Community Sponsored by Medtronic

  2. EP specialists understand that: Drugs (ACEIs, BB, Aldo Antagonists) have a profound impact on HF progression and mortality Drugs (BB and Aldo Antagonists) significantly decrease SCD HF specialists understand that: 50% of HF patients die from SCD ICD decreases mortality CRT decreases morbidity and mortality “Electromechanical Associations”EP & HF Specialties Progressively More EntwinedRogers JG & Cain MENEJM 2004;350:2193-95

  3. Prevalence and Prognosis of Ventricular dyssynchrony LBBB More Prevalent with Increased All-Cause Mortality with Impaired LV Systolic Function Wide QRS at 45 Months (3) P < 0.001 Preserved 49% 8% LVSF (1) 34% Impaired 24% LVSF (1) QRS QRS < 120 ms ≥ 120 ms Mod/Sev 38% HF (2) 3. Iuliano, et al. AHJ. 2002;143:1085-1091. 1. Masoudi, et al. JACC. 2003;41:217-223. 2. Aaronson, et al. Circulation. 1997;95:2660-2667.

  4. Cardiac Resynchronization Intraventricular Synchrony Atrioventricular Synchrony Interventricular Synchrony  RV Stroke Volume  dP/dt,  EF,  CO ( Pulse Pressure)  LA Pressure  LV Diastolic Filling  MR  LVESV  LVEDV Reverse Remodeling Cardiac Resynchronization: Proposed Mechanisms Yu C-M, Chau E, Sanderson J, et al. Circulation 2002;105:438-445

  5. Cumulative Benefit of ACE-I and Beta Blockers P < 0.01 P < 0.05 Exner DV et al. JACC; 1999; 33: 916-23

  6. Total Mortality Benefit for an ICD Trial (AVID) and a Statin Trial (WOSCOP) 4.1% 3.2% 25% 18% • 27% Relative Risk Reduction • 7% Absolute Risk Reduction • 18% Residual Risk • 22% Relative Risk Reduction • 0.9% Absolute Risk reduction • 3.2% Residual Risk

  7. Residual Risk of SCD in Treatment Arms of CHF-Beta Blocker Trials Sudden Death % of Total Death 31% 54% 54% No. Pts in Treatment Arm: n= 1327 n= 1990 n = 696 Average Follow Up: 16 months 12 months 6.5 months • CIBIS-II Investigators. Lancet 1999; 353: 9-13. 3. Packer, M, et al. N Engl J Med 1996: 334: 1349-55. • MERIT-HF Study Group. Lancet. 1999; 353: 2001-07.

  8. MADIT II: Hospitalization for Heart Failure P= 0.009 Moss AJ et al. NEJM 2002; 346: 877-83

  9. Moderate CHF Severe CHF Post-MI LV dysfunction Mild CHF SOLVD Treatment (enalapril) CONSENSUS (enalapril) AIRE/SAVE (ramipril/captopril) US Carvedilol/MERIT (carvedilol/metoprolol) COPERNICUS (carvedilol) CAPRICORN (carvedilol) RALES (spironolactone) EPHESUS (eplerenone) CHARM/Val-HeFT (candesartan/valsartan) Pharmacologic and Device Therapy Across the Continuum MADIT, MUSTT (ICD) SCD-HeFT, MADIT-II (ICD) MIRACLE, COMPANION, MUSTIC (CRT +/- ICD) CARE-HF

  10. CRT Background • CRT has been shown to be consistently associated with: • Reductions in LV size and volume • Increased Stroke Volume • Increased Ejection Fraction • Reduced Mitral Regurgitation • Improved exercise capacity • Improved QOL and functional capacity • Effects of CRT on hospitalisation and mortality remain uncertain

  11. CRT Improves Quality of Life and NYHA Functional Class * P < 0.05 Abraham et al., 2003

  12. CRT Improves Exercise Capacity * P < 0.05 Abraham et al., 2003

  13. Mean distance walked in 6 minutes (m) 500 P<0.001 P<0.001 P=0.01 P<0.001 400 300 Paired Data Displayed 200 100 0 Mean NYHA Functional Class P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001 4 Baseline Follow-up 3 2 1 100 P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001 P<0.001 Mean QoL Score 80 60 40 20 0 6 (N=1124) 12 (N=693) 18 (N=320) 24 (N=68) Months of Active CRT CRT Benefits Sustained Through 2 YearsMIRACLE Study Program Abraham et al., AHA 2003

  14. ‡ * † Improvement * ‡ * NS ‡ Comparison with Drug Trials: Digoxin, ACE-I and Beta-blocker Therapies * P.05 † P.01 ‡ P.001 4 Am J Cardiol 1993;71:1106-1107 (SOLVD Treatment) 5 J Cardiac Failure 1997;3:173-179 6 NEJM 2002;346:1845-53 (MIRACLE) 1 NEJM 1993;329:1-7 (RADIANCE) 2 Circulation 1996;94:2793-2799 (PRECISE) 3 JAMA 1988;259:539-544

  15. Systematic Review of 9 clinical trials CRT reduces all-cause mortality by 21% (RR 0.79 [Ci 0.66-0.96] NNTB 24 McAlister FA et al. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:381-90 CRT does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality Calvert M, Freemantle N and Cleland JGF Ann Intern Med 2005; 142 :305-7

  16. Limitations of Previous Trials/Analyses orWhy Was CARE-HF Needed • No individual clinical trial found a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality • 8/9 trials required successful device implantation before pts. were randomly assigned to CRT on or off [omission of implant failures (10%) and procedural deaths (0.4%) and exposure of controls to the effects of implanted device] • CRT combined with ICD in some but not all studies (difficult to isolate effect of CRT alone on mortality)

  17. Limitations of Previous Trials/Analyses orWhy Was CARE-HF Needed (cont’d) • COMPANION had unbalanced 3-arm design (OMT, CRT, CRT+ICD) • Inclusion of all 3 arms of COMPANION in meta-analyses inappropriately credits CRT with the mortality reduction due to the ICD

  18. The CARE-HF StudyCArdiac REsynchronisation in Heart Failure John GF Cleland - Kingston-upon-Hull. UK Jean-Claude Daubert – Rennes. France Erland Erdmann – Cologne. Germany Nick Freemantle – Birmingham. UK Daniel Gras – Nantes. France Lukas Kappenberger – Lausanne. Switzerland Werner Klein – Graz. Austria Luigi Tavazzi – Pavia. Italy on behalf of the CARE-HF Study Investigators

  19. CARE-HFIntent • To assess the effect on morbidity and mortality of adding CRT to optimised pharmacological therapy in patients with moderate and severe HF due to LVSD complicated by cardiac dyssynchrony • To investigate the mechanisms underlying the observed effect to identify markers predicting success or failure of CRT • To define long term effects and Health Economics.

  20. CARE-HF Committees • Steering Committee (8) • Data Safety and Monitoring Board (4) • Ryden, Poole-Wilson, Wellens, Wedel • Blinded Endpoint Adjudication • Committee (2) • Uretsky, Thygesen • Independent device-related adverse event assessor (1) • (Bocker)

  21. Sites - Investigators - Coordinators Steering Committee FCM/ Monitors BRC Core-labs Quintiles - SS&R - DM - CEVA USA Tolochenaz EPC CARE-HF Communication DSMB

  22. CARE-HF Study Overview

  23. Primary & Main Secondary Endpoints Primary Composite Endpoint • All-cause mortality or unplanned hosp. for a major CVS event (time to first event analysis) • Hospitalisations adjudicated by a blinded EP committee Main Secondary Endpoint • All-cause mortality

  24. Statistical Methods • Assumptions for Death or Unplanned CV hospitalization • Event rate in the control group: 40% • Absolute reduction in risk: 5.7% • 80% power with 300 primary outcome events • Censoring data within first 10 post randomization for Hospitalization endpoint. (No influence on results when analyzed without 10 days)

  25. Study Design Patient screening- consent Randomization Optimal medical therapy Optimal medical therapy & cardiac resynchronization Follow-up (min 1.5 year) Follow-up (min 1.5 year) Primary outcome Secondary outcomes Mechanistic & health economic outcomes

  26. Intervention • InSync® or InSync® III -> CRT-alone • Atrial-based, biventricular stimulation • RV: from apex using a standard pacing lead • LV: from lateral or postero-lateral free wall via the coronary sinus and veins using an Attain™ lead • Echo guided optimization of AV delay

  27. Main Inclusion Criteria • Heart failure for at least 6 weeks requiring loop diuretics • Currently in NYHA class III/IV • A high standard of pharmacological therapy • LV systolic dysfunction and dilation • EF 35%; EDD 30mm/height in metres

  28. Main Inclusion Criteria (cont’d) • QRS 120 ms • Dyssynchrony confirmed by echo if QRS = 120-149 ms • Aortic pre-ejection delay >140ms • Inter-ventricular mechanical delay >40 ms • Delayed activation of postero-lateral LV wall Main Exclusion Criteria • Patients with chronic AF or requiring pacing excluded

  29. Population – Baseline Characteristics • 813 pts predominantly class III (94%) • Mean age 65 (IQR 59-72) • 34% aged > 70 years • 27 % woman • 38 % Ischaemic Heart Disease, 46% Dilated CM • Mean HR adequately controlled at 70 BPM • 88% QRS > 150 msec. • Supine systolic BP : 117 (IQR 105-130) • 94 % diuretic, 95 % Ace or ARB, 72 % b-Blocker, 56% Spironolactone Baseline Characteristics of Patients Recruited into the CARE-HF Study; With Courtesy : JGF Cleland et al. Submitted to EJHF

  30. Population – Baseline Characteristics (cont’d) • LV EF 26% • LVEDD 72 mm • 2D and Doppler date suggest that few patients had end-stage disease characterized by pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction • Co-Morbidities: • Diabetes 21%, history Atrial Arrhythmias 21%, Pulmonary disease 19%, renal dysfunction 18% Baseline Echo Cardiographic Characteristics of HF Patients enrolled in a large European Multicenter trial (Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure) With Courtesy : S. Ghio et al. Submitted to EJHF. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Recruited into the CARE-HF Study; With Courtesy : JGF Cleland et al. Submitted to EJHF

  31. Baseline Characteristics

  32. Baseline Characteristics (cont’d)

  33. MIRACLE, COMPANION, CARE-HF: Similarities and Differences MIRACLE COMPANION CARE-HF 1 yr mortality (%) (Control Arm ) 12.6 19

  34. CARE-HF vs. other CRT Trial Populations • CARE-HF patients did not need a hospitalization within the year preceding enrollment, as requested in the COMPANION trial. • Diabetes co-morbidity in COMPANION was 40-45% vs. 21% in CARE-HF. Ischaemic population 55-59 % vs. 38% in CARE-HF. • One-year mortality in Control group : COMPANION 19% / CARE-HF 12.6%. • Average patient in CARE-HF appear to be less symptomatic than in MIRACLE, as CARE-HF included over 94% NYHA Class III. However, in CARE-HF >90% of patients had EF < 30 %. • Since CRT proved effective in CARE-HF, this may provide evidence of benefit in a broader symptomatic group than previously studied. Quote from Baseline Characteristics of Patients Recruited into the CARE-HF Study; With Courtesy : JGF Cleland et al. Submitted to EJHF

  35. CARE-HF Results

  36. 1-14 Patients/Center >14 Patients/Center • Recruitment • 813 patients (Jan 2001 - Mar 2003) • 82 centers in 12 countries • Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, • and UK

  37. 409 Patients Randomized to CRT Arm 1 Death 4 No implant attempt 404 Implant Attempts 390 pts CRT implanted 96% with 3 attempts, 86% at first attempt Time randomization to implant : 4 days [2,8] Implant success rate 96% Before activation of CRT therapy ->6 pts reached primary objective CRT Arm - Implantation

  38. Conduct of the Study • Follow-up time • Minimum 18 month -> last patient Sep 2004 • Average (Mean) Follow up : 29.4 month accounting • Cut-off data (30 Sept. 2004 – Randomization date) • Maximum 44.7 months: 3years 8 months • At completion (30th September 2004) • <5% cross-over before primary endpoint • Survival status ascertained on all patients • 202/ 813 pts (25% reached secondary endpoint) • 383/813 pts (45% reached primary endpoint) • All Adverse Events were adjudicated into Major, Minor, Planned hospitalization and for mode, cause, place

  39. Primary Endpoint(All-cause Mortality or Unplanned Hosp. for Major CVS Event) 1.00 0.75 Event-free Survival 0.50 Medical Therapy 0.25 0.00 0 500 1000 1500 Days Number at risk 409 323 273 166 68 7 CRT 404 292 232 118 48 3 Medical Therapy

  40. 1.00 HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.77) 0.75 0.50 Event-free Survival P < .0001 Medical : 224 ptsTherapy (55 %) 0.25 0.00 0 500 1000 1500 Days Number at risk 409 323 273 166 68 7 CRT 404 292 232 118 48 3 Medical Therapy Primary Endpoint(All-cause Mortality or Unplanned Hosp. for Major CVS Event) CRT : 159 pts (39%)

  41. All-Cause Mortality 1.00 0.75 0.50 Event-free Survival Medical Therapy 0.25 0.00 0 500 1000 1500 Days Number at risk 409 376 351 213 89 8 CRT 404 365 321 192 71 5 Medical Therapy

  42. All-Cause Mortality 1.00 HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.85) 0.75 CRT : 82pts (20%) P = .0019 0.50 Event-free Survival Medical 120 pts Therapy (30%) 0.25 0.00 0 500 1000 1500 Days Number at risk 409 376 351 213 89 8 CRT 404 365 321 192 71 5 Medical Therapy

  43. PrimaryEndpoint

  44. Symptoms & Quality of Life at 90 days

  45. Mechanistic Outcomes * Positive values indicate higher value with CRT compared to control

  46. Serious Adverse Events

  47. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy:Patient Selection February 2005 •  18 years of age • NYHA Functional Class III or IV despite stable/optimal drug regimen • QRS duration  120-130 msec • LVEF  35%; LVEDD  55 millimeters • With or without indication for ICD

  48. ICDs: Patient Selection February 2005 •  18 years of age • NYHA Functional Class II or III despite stable/optimal drug regimen • LVEF  35% • Ischemics must have “remote” MI (> 30 days) • Non-ischemics must have CHF of at least 3 (?9) months duration

  49. Device Indications • Stage C heart failure • LVEF  35% • Optimal medical therapy 1. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1845-1853 2. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Amiodarone or an implanatble cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005;352:225-37

  50. Remaining Questions About CRT • Effects of CRT in pts. with EF ≤ 35%, but NYHA class I or II ( MADIT-CRT, REVERSE) • Effects of CRT in pts. with NYHA class IV HF (< 5% of population in CRT trials) • Effects of CRT in pts. with narrow QRS but evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony • Effects of CRT in pts. with atrial fibrillation (excluded from CRT trials) • Predictors of response to CRT (PROSPECT trial) • Cost effectiveness of CRT

More Related