Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode

Circulation on the Run

Jan 14, 2019

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Hello. We're here at the American Heart Association meeting in Chicago where circulation has 19 simultaneous publications this year. And that is a huge increase from six in the past to 19, all thanks to the man next to me.

                                                But first, let me introduce myself. I'm Dr Carolyn Lam. I'm associate editor from the National Heart Center and Duke National University of Singapore. I'm the voice you hear on 'Circulation On the Run'.

                                                I'm so pleased to be here in person today with Dr Dharam Kumbhani. He's associate editor from UT Southwestern and he also leads the simultaneous publications for this journal. So big applause for this amazing bonanza this year.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   Thank you.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Next to him, we have Dr Sana Al-Khatib and she's from the Duke University. And finally, Dr Gabriel Steg from University of Paris. Wow! Okay, we've got 19 papers to chat about. No, I'm just kidding. We're going to talk and focus on the seven simultaneous publications that were late-breaking science.

                                                Why don't you start us off, Dharam. We will first start with the interventional trials, and there were three of them. I'd love you to chat about the first of them, but even before that, maybe, tell us what it's like to get a simultaneous publication. Because I think people underestimate the amount of work it takes to do that.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   Thanks a lot, Carolyn. I think under Joe's leadership the whole space of simultaneous publications in late paying clinical science has really been a big endeavor for him and for the journal. We just have an amazing team that's able to work on this in very quick order. So, for the viewers, I think it's a very involved process, but it's a very gratifying process.

                                                We work very closely among the associate editors, the senior editors, and then the circ staff, and we have very rapid turnaround time. So we owe a lot of gratitude to our reviewers who frequently will turn these reviews in within 48 hours. Our goal has been that we respond back with a decision usually within five to seven days. So it's been very gratifying.

                                                Then it moves onto the next set of revisions, et cetera. But even among the papers that we are unable to accept for circulation, it's just a quick turnaround time for the authors so they haven't lost as much time and can potentially look elsewhere.

                                                It's been a really gratifying process. It's been a great, great team effort. I appreciate everything you said, but really I don't deserve all that credit. It's been a great team effort.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                No, it's been rumored there's a lot of lost sleep on your end, so thank you, thank you Dharam for this. And maybe you could open with the ISAR-TEST 4, that's been [crosstalk 00:02:47].

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   Yeah, well thank you. I think we had some really interesting interventional trials and Dr Steg will discuss a couple of them as well.

                                                ISAR-TEST 4 was a very interesting trial. It is one of the first 10 trials that gets to the 10-year mark, so this is just the 10-year follow-up results of that. It was about a 2500 patient trial. It was done in Germany, multiple centers. Really they were trying to assess the space that they were trying to ... Or the knowledge gap that they were trying to fill was the durability of the bioabsorbable polymer stents.

                                                Specifically, they were looking at a bioabsorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, the Yukon stent, and then they compared that with durable polymer stents including Xience or the everolimus-eluting stent and then Cypher, which is no longer available in the U.S., but that's a permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent.

                                                The primary results were published and presented a long time ago. There was really MACE events at one year and it showed non-inferiority for this bioabsorbable polymer stent back then. So, then they had, incredibly, 83% of the cohort that they were able to follow-up out of 10 years. And what they showed is that ... I don't want to necessarily get into the numbers and the details as much, but what they showed is that this bioabsorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent tended to have similar outcomes to Xience, which we accept as state of the art current generation stent, permanent polymer. And it did better than the Cypher stent, both in terms of MACE events and stent thrombosis.

                                                So suggesting that, the big advance in the field for this is ... This is a long-term follow-up of the stent. It suggests that outcomes may be similar in this patient population. Although only 12% were really enrolled with an MI in this patient population. Most of them were stable or less sick ACS patients. And they show fairly good outcomes out of 10 years, comparable to Xience and better than Cypher.

                                                I think it was interesting. Gabriel, what is your take [crosstalk 00:04:57].

Dr Gabriel Steg:                I think it's important. There's been a tremendous interest in international community on trying to tease out which are the best types of stents and beyond brands, try to understand the type of stent, the coating, the drug that you put on it, whether the polymer is durable or not durable. I think these types of fairly well done, large randomized trials with long term flow are critical.

                                                A lot of the focus in the interventional community originally was on lumen size, late loss, angiographic parameters short term. And now the field has matured, and we've moved to clinical outcomes, patient-oriented outcomes, long term follow-up. And it's important because we've learned from long term trials such as PROTECT that the result at one year may not predict what happens at five years, and sometimes you have surprises.

                                                So, it's really important. We owe it to our patients because these are irretrievable devices. Once you've implanted them, they are there. We talked about Cypher being out of the market, but there are more than a million patients who walk every day on this plant with a Cypher in their coronary artery, so we better know what the long-term follow-up is.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   Yeah, that's a great point.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Wow. And then thanks also for the discussion that allows me, as a noninterventionist, to realize ... It's hard to keep track of what's happening with all the different types of stents and polymers and so on. But could you then summarize for the field, does that mean that these biodegradable ones are now ... Do I sound ignorant when I say that? That they are now really in the game. Is that what it does?

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   This whole bioabsorbable field, there are nuances. So this really is testing a bioabsorbable polymer where -

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Oh!

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   So, with every stent you have a stent, you have the polymer, and then you have the drug.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Thank you.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   And so, the polymer and the drug go away, and then you're left behind with a bare metal stent. And that's this Yukon stent.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Got it.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   The one that has been in the press a lot more is the bioabsorbable scaffold where the stent and the polymer and the drug, everything in theory should be gone at a certain period of time. So this is ... It's an important distinction though. Because I know that it's very confusion when you just say bioabsorbable and it's unclear if you're talking about the polymer or you're talking about the stent, itself. But this really was a bioabsorbable polymer issue, so you're left behind with a bare metal stent at the end of it.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Got it, crystal clear, and thank you. That's cool. That's super.

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            I agree, for an electrophysiologist too.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                But now, let's go into the AMI field. There were two trials that really spoke to acute management patients coming in with an AMI and with cardiogenic shock, for example. Gabriel, could you tell us a little bit about the IABP-SHOCK II trial, as well as the really talked about a door-to-unload IMPELLA Trial.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                The IABP II trial is a randomized trial looking at the benefit, or lack thereof, of intraaortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock and acute MI. It's been standard practice since the '60s to offer IABP pumping to patients with cardiogenic shocks and AMI.

                                                So, literally more than a million patients have been implanted with IABP, but the reality is when we look at the randomized trial evidence of benefit there was none. They were very small trials, inconclusive, underpowered. Professor Thiele from Germany and his colleagues deserve enormous credit for having had the courage to really do what needed to be done. A proper randomized controlled trial, of course open label.

                                                And what they found in IABP II, which they already reported a few years ago, was that there was no acute benefit of IABP on survival short term, or for that matter on many of the secondary clinical outcomes looked at in this trial. They subsequently reported one year mortality.

                                                What they did here is they gathered follow-up on almost all of the cohort at more than six years. And they found that the long term survival is identical for patients who received an IABP and those who did not. So I think this nails the issue. But there's another thing we learn. The mortality at six years is staggering, it's close to 60%. And although a large fraction of the patients die in the first 30 days, you still have an additional 10% of patients who die between the first year and six years.

                                                So there still remains a very sick patient population for whom we need to investigate new strategies. I don't think it's going to be necessarily mechanical. We have to think of all of the strategies we do to prevent and mitigate cardiogenic shock to build up. And that's gets us to the second trial that I'll talk to you about in a minute.

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            I have a quick question about this. Did they provide any information about modes of death in these patients?

Dr Gabriel Steg:                Yes. They did capture information about that. Off the top of my head, I'm unable to provide information, but yes they did capture that. The German system allowed them to retrieve information about causes of death and it's a closed system. It's a national trial, so they were able to get enormous follow-up.

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            Because this information can help us inform what interventions are needed next.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                Yes. That's really important.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   To your point about ... You use a very interesting word, the last nail. That's actually how Dr Hochman addressed her editorial. She wrote a really nice editorial-

Dr Gabriel Steg:                The leading expert in the field.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   And so, I'm interested in your thoughts. The use of balloon pumps for shock, there's a discrepancy between the American guidelines and the European guidelines. Last year the European guidelines were updated. It is really such a practice changing guideline in that it now lists routine use of balloon pumps in cardiogenic shock-

Dr Gabriel Steg:                Class III.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   -as a class III indication. Going through training, that was all you had when someone came in with shock, you would throw in a balloon pump. So that's really quite a practice changing event.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                Yeah. These investigators are embarking on new studies with ECMO and I think it's going to be fascinating to see whether ECMO, which also gets increasingly used worldwide, whether there is evidence to acutely support or not whether this is useful. I think they are doing the proper thing. They are doing the right thing, randomized trials. And we could commend them because these are really difficult trials.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Absolutely.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                In the acute MI setting, shock patients, ECMO, IABP, that's really difficult. They are brave investigators, they are good investigators, and I think they provided the community with a clear answer.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                And exactly the kind of papers that we like publishing at circulation, isn't it? Now what about the door-to-unload?

Dr Gabriel Steg:                That is actually a good segue with door-to-unload because if we can't properly treat shock once it's there, can we do something to prevent shock? Can we do something to preserve myocardium? One of the experimental findings that is very clear is that if you unload experimental myocardial infarction, if you unload the left ventricle you reduce infarct size.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                So, investigators have been trying to translate this experimental finding into the clinical arena using the Impella device. There's enormous interest, particularly in North America for Impella use in acute MI patients with larger infarcts with the idea that if you can unload the left ventricle, you might be able to mitigate the extent of the myocardial infarction, and therefore avoid cardiogenic shock and probably improve prognosis.

                                                Although this is a very attractive theoretical concept, it still deserves to be tested. And so, if you want to test it you have to unload the ventricle as soon as possible, ideally before reperfusion, which means that you're going to have to delay reperfusion for the time of implanting the device and unloading the ventricle. And so what the investigators did in this trial is to study whether delaying proposedly by 30 minutes reperfusion, to unload the ventricle for 30 minutes prior to reperfusion, was feasible and reasonably safe.

                                                It's a small trial. It's really a pilot trial. By no means does it test the proof of concept of the device or the theoretical issue, but it shows that it's feasible. There doesn't seem to be a massive increase in total time to reperfusion because just by change the group that was not delayed had a longer time to PCI, so eventually things are sort of evening out.

                                                They looked at MRI size of infarcts at follow-up. There was no obvious difference, but of course it could still be tied to errors. We're not totally sure about this, but it certainly paves the way for doing a proper proof of concept randomized trial, testing unloading versus no unloading with a true control group. And I think that's what investigators are looking forward, but I understand there's immense interest for this concept in international community, particularly in the United States and I'm quite curious to see what this future trial will look like and what the results will be.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Yeah, indeed. Gabriel, I noticed you were very careful to frame it, to say what the trial was trying to address and what it wasn't. And there's been quite a bit of buzz after that.

                                                Do you agree with everything Gabriel has said and what have you heard?

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   I think he was incredibly eloquent in outlining the premise of the trial and what it really showed. I think the one thing that ... And this was brought up in the very nice editorial by Dr Patel from Duke as well, is it would've been really nice to have a control arm which didn't have any unloading. Because these are not patients with shock, that just directly had primary PCI. And then comparing infarct size.

                                                So, I think that was one of the pieces of information that would've been helpful to then put this in perspective. When you have an infarct size of 8% or 10%, how does that compare in the same patient population in their testing? You're absolutely right about the need to do difficult trials like this, where a lot of times it's just assumed to be true and is embraced in clinical practice.

                                                As I gave the example about the balloon pump earlier, where as a Fellow you saw someone in shock and your reflex was to put in a balloon pump. And so, I think testing these very difficult patient scenarios, as well as just in terms of trial execution, it's amazing to have two trials on that.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                If I may come back to this?

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Yes.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                It's funny because we've been using the IABP for years, thinking this is what we should do in shock. Now our German colleagues have proven that IABP doesn't work. So a lot of investigators have reverted, saying "Well, we should use Impella." But where is the evidence showing that Impella is beneficial?

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   That's right.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                That's right.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                We have none, so I think that's a trial that deserves to be done.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   And ECMO. Yeah, exactly.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Yeah, ECMO. Exactly. And, you know, going back to door-to-unload, it's important to prove safety in order to go to the next step, which is exactly how you frame-

Dr Gabriel Steg:                I think it shouldn't be over interpreted.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                That's how it should be, exactly, received by the community. So that's great. Now let's switch gears a bit.

                                                Sana, in EP world, the EP guided noninvasive radio ablation of VT. Fascinating stuff. What are your thoughts?

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            I absolutely agree, definitely. This was a phase two study that the authors did. They enrolled 19 patients, so it was a small study, but it was really helpful. Remember, there's a major clinical need there. These are patients who have an ICD, who have recurring ventricular tachycardia, that have been treated with at least one antiarrhythmic medication, at least one catheter ablation procedure, and then what do you do with those patients? This is actually a clinical scenario that comes up frequently and we absolutely need to be looking for more therapies for those patients.

                                                So that's what that study was about, trying to explore new ways to treat these patients. To be able to do it noninvasively, I think is fascinating. That's what ... They enrolled these patients. Patients had to have failed these treatments, antiarrhythmic medications, prior catheter ablation, and they underwent noninvasive imaging to really localize the source of the ventricular tachycardia, where it's coming from, and then they subjected them to stereotactic body radiotherapy to ablate those sources of ventricular tachycardia.

                                                And, of course, the results were fascinating because they showed on the effectiveness side that this seemed to be very effective because if you look at the reduction in the burden of ventricular tachycardia, and a couple of their patients actually had significant PVCs and PVC induced cardiomyopathy, there was a significant reduction in the rates of these arrhythmias in these patients with this intervention, which was great to see.

                                                In fact, to be specific, about 94% of these patients, so 18 out of the 19, had significant benefit. And in about 89% of the patients there was more than 75% reduction in the arrhythmia. So these are actually really interesting findings, especially in a patient population where we really don't have other options. Now of course you're going to ask me about the safety. What are the safety concerns?

                                                Of course, this was a primary endpoint for the authors. They did look at safety up to 90 days and they found that there were two significant adverse events that occurred in those 90 days. One was heart failure and one was pericarditis. The concern, of course, with radiation is what else can we expect especially if you follow the patients longer? So certainly we need more data. The authors acknowledged that beautifully and I think their intent is to launch a multi-center randomized clinical trial. I don't know if it will be randomized, but at least a multi-center clinical trial to see if they can replicate those findings. So that was very interesting to see.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Yeah it was. Thanks, that was really exciting.

                                                So, some exciting trials in my world of cardiometabolic disease too, and I want to highlight two. The CARMELINA trial and the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61.

                                                First the CARMELINA trial. This was a secondary analysis of CARMELINA and this was ... CARMELINA, if I can remind everyone, is a cardiovascular outcomes trial, randomizing about 7000 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and/or chronic kidney disease. Randomizing them to the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg a day versus placebo, following up for a median of about two years.

                                                We know that type 2 diabetic patients are at risk of heart failure and there's always been a bit of a question mark when it comes to DPP-4 inhibitors and their risk for heart failure. And so this secondary analysis looks specifically at the hospitalization for heart failure and related events in CARMELINA. The important thing is that all these were prospectively centrally adjudicated events, and this was a pre-specified post hoc analysis.

                                                And the summary of it all is that linagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure or the composite of cardiovascular death in hospitalization or the related outcomes. Importantly, the authors did also sensitivity analyses and interaction analyses to show that the results were consistent whether or not patients had a history of heart failure, which was in 27% of patients, regardless of the baseline ejection fraction that was measured within a year of starting the drug, and also regardless of renal function. So EGFR or urinary albumin to creatinine ratio.

                                                This is really important because this trial adds to the growing perhaps understanding of DPP-4 inhibitor heart failure risk. The whole question mark actually came with SAVOR TIMI and that was saxagliptin. But since then there's been three other trials that have showed no heart failure risk. EXAMINE, TECOS, and now CARMELINA. So, an important addition and I think it should reassure us.

                                                And then from diabetes and heart failure risk, which is always very hot, but now obesity. The CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial looked at renal outcomes in this trial. Now what was this trial? It was actually testing lorcaserin, and that is a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist, in about 12,000 obese or overweight patients.

                                                Basically, the primary results showed that it did not increase any ... It met it's CV safety outcomes with weight loss and so on. But this time they looked at renal outcomes. Because obesity has been known to be associated with hyperfiltration of the kidneys, you get albuminuria and it's apparently worsening of kidney disease. So what we need to know is pharmacological weight loss going to be associated with improved renal outcomes?

                                                And basically, that is what CAMELLIA-TIMIA 61 showed. Their renal outcomes were new or persistent albuminuria and then the standard doubling of EGFR or end-stage renal failure, renal transplant or renal death. And that was improved by lorcaserin. Along with that, there was the anticipated reduction in weight, HbA1c, and BP. It does look like, from these late breaking results that we have another tool in our toolbox.

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            And for the clinicians out there, which patients should they be thinking to use this medication in? What kind of obesity are we talking about? At what point do you introduce that?

Dr Carolyn Lam:                This is common garden, just defined by BMI that was above 27. And I don't think they're saying to use it in patients with renal dysfunction, but to sort of say to look and see whether weight loss also associates with renal function improvement, and it does. It's reassuring.

Dr Sana Al-Khatib:            Yeah, okay.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                And then ... Okay, let's round up with that last trial. A very interesting one because it's pragmatic mobile health and wellness. Tell us.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   It's really a monumental effort. This is ... I'll be brief, but it's really a phenomenal trial from an epi standpoint and implementation standpoint. This is from India. It was coordinated by the Center for Chronic Disease Control and the Public Health Foundation of India where, as everyone knows, India is now the diabetes capital of the world and chronic diseases have very quickly overtaken other infectious causes as the number one cause of mortality and morbidity.

                                                This was a big undertaking, really collaboration from three continents, but it was a community based plus a randomized trial. They had 40 community health centers and what they were trying to see is primarily for hypertension and diabetes. That if you implemented a structure and typically using this mWELLCARE tool, which is basically an electronic medical records storage facility and then it also has inbuilt clinical decision support.

                                                And really for hypertension and diabetes management, but also, they had tobacco and alcohol screening, abuse screening, and also for depression. So what they really wanted to do ... A very ingenious endeavor and they try to see if doing this systematically on a clustered randomized fashion if that would actually influence patient outcome. They had a little over 3000 patients and they followed them for 12 months.

                                                Unfortunately, the trial, itself, as far as the primary endpoint, which was change in systolic blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c, they had pretty significant reductions in both arms, about 12 to 13 millimeters, which is amazing from a population health standpoint, in both arms not statistically significant, and in hemoglobin A1c also by 0.5% in both arms.

                                                Just suggesting that having this more frequent interactions with the medical health system, itself, was driving a lot of this benefit. So although the trial, itself, was negative for the primary endpoint, I think it's a huge step forward for the management of chronic disease epidemiology and burden in developing countries.

Dr Gabriel Steg:                Neutral.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                Ah, true.

Dr Dharam Kumbhani:   Fair point.

Dr Carolyn Lam:                We've discussed this whole array of seven trials and they are difficult trials. I mean, talk about another difficult type of trial to do, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. It's amazing the breadth of simultaneous publications we've had this year. Thanks again to everyone for introducing this and thank you for joining us today.