Dataset Information

Implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An educational video.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Implantation and use of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) systems is a proven treatment strategy for epilepsy and depression, and extensive research regarding vagal control of the heart has led to the idea of VNS as a potential adjunct treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We describe our experience with the implantation of an investigational VNS system to manage patients living with HFrEF.

Methods

As part of the ongoing ANTHEM-HFrEF (Autonomic Regulation Therapy to Enhance Myocardial Function and Reduce Progression of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) Pivotal Study, a 67-year-old male patient with a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy was randomized to implantation of the VITARIA System (LivaNova Inc). The electrical lead requires no mapping for placement around the vagus nerve. The surgical procedure was completed uneventfully under general anesthesia, and the device was activated in the operating room after surgery.

Results

Following successful implantation and activation of the VNS system, the patient was discharged to home on the same day.

Conclusions

Current, ongoing studies, such as the ANTHEM-HFrEF Pivotal Study, are designed to determine the long-term effects of VNS on heart failure symptoms, hospitalization rates, and survival. The VNS-implantation procedure was straightforward.

SUBMITTER: Al Rameni D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9366221 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An educational video.

Al Rameni Dina D Akay Mehmet M Jumean Marwan M Al Rameeni Aon A Kar Biswajit B Gregoric Igor D ID

JTCVS techniques 20220412

<h4>Objectives</h4>Implantation and use of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) systems is a proven treatment strategy for epilepsy and depression, and extensive research regarding vagal control of the heart has led to the idea of VNS as a potential adjunct treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We describe our experience with the implantation of an investigational VNS system to manage patients living with HFrEF.<h4>Methods</h4>As part of the ongoing ANTHEM-HFrEF (Autonomic ...[more]

PMID: 35967202

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Project description:Heart failure is a common entity encountered in healthcare with a vast socioeconomic impact. Recent advances in pharmacotherapy have led to the development of novel therapies with mortality benefits, improvement in heart failure symptoms and hospitalizations. This article is intended to explore those newer pharmacotherapies and summarize the evidence behind guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It has been several years since any significant advances in pharmacotherapy of heart failure have resulted in survival benefit. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors through the PARADIGM-HF and PIONEER-HF trials have shown mortality benefits and a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and are considered landmark trials in heart failure. Vericiguat is an oral guanylate cyclase stimulator that through the recent VICTORIA trial showed a 10% relative difference in death from cardiovascular cause or hospitalization for heart failure. The sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are another class of medications that have shown promise in the treatment of patients with HFrEF and diabetes mellitus. The CANVAS and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials showed the potential benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular mortality, DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial showed that treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure to a greater extent in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Although novel pharmacotherapy is the current focus of intense research, there have been numerous studies on potential benefit of iron supplementation in ferropenic patients with heart failure. Another rapidly expanding area of research in the realm of heart failure is precision medicine and its impact on the development, progression, and treatment of heart failure. The field of heart failure is dynamic and with the influx of data from recent and ongoing trials, newer therapies with morbidity and mortality benefits in HFrEF are now available, nonetheless, much work is still needed.

Dataset Information

Implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An educational video.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An educational video.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets