Browsing by Author "Abraham, William T. (7202743967)"

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020.

BACKGROUND: The role of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure has not been clearly established. METHODS: Between July 2002 and May 2007, a total of 1212 patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less and coronary artery disease amenable to CABG were randomly assigned to medical therapy alone (602 patients) or medical therapy plus CABG (610 patients). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause. Major secondary outcomes included the rates of death from cardiovascular causes and of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 244 patients (41%) in the medical-therapy group and 218 (36%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.04; P = 0.12). A total of 201 patients (33%) in the medical-therapy group and 168 (28%) in the CABG group died from an adjudicated cardiovascular cause (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P = 0.05). Death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 411 patients (68%) in the medical-therapy group and 351 (58%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.85; P<0.001). By the end of the follow-up period (median, 56 months), 100 patients in the medical-therapy group (17%) underwent CABG, and 555 patients in the CABG group (91%) underwent CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, there was no significant difference between medical therapy alone and medical therapy plus CABG with respect to the primary end point of death from any cause. Patients assigned to CABG, as compared with those assigned to medical therapy alone, had lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes and of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Laboratories; STICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.) Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of a novel percutaneous left ventricular partitioning device (VPD) in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and a prior anterior myocardial infarction. Background: Anterior myocardial infarction is frequently followed by left ventricular remodeling, HF, and increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Methods: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in a multinational, nonrandomized, longitudinal investigation. The primary end point was an assessment of safety, defined as the successful delivery and deployment of the VPD and absence of device-related major adverse cardiac events over 6 months. Secondary (exploratory) efficacy end points included changes in hemodynamics and functional status and were assessed serially throughout the study. Results: Ventricular partitioning device placement was not attempted in 5 (13%) of 39 subjects. The device was safely and successfully implanted in 31 (91%) of the remaining 34 patients or 79% of all enrolled patients. The 6-month rate of device-related major adverse cardiac event occurred in 5 (13%) of 39 enrolled subjects and 5 (15%) of 34 treated subjects, with 1 additional event occurring between 6 and 12 months. For patients discharged with the device to 12 months (n = 28), New York Heart Association class (2.5 ± 0.6 to 1.3 ± 0.6, P <.001) and quality-of-life scores (38.6 ± 6.1 to 28.4 ± 4.4, P <.002) improved significantly; however, the 6-minute hall walk distance (358.5 ± 20.4 m to 374.7 ± 25.6 m, P nonsignificant) only trended toward improvement. Conclusions: The left VPD appears to be relatively safe and potentially effective in the treatment for patients with HF and a prior anterior myocardial infarction. However, these limited results suggest the need for further evaluation in a larger randomized controlled trial. © 2012 Mosby, Inc.