Baseline NT-proBNP and responsiveness to autonomic regulation therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
Autonomic regulation therapy
Baroreceptor activation therapy (BAT)
Carotid nerve plexus stimulation
Guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT)
Heart failure
N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)
Neuromodulation
Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS)
Journal
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
12
02
2020
accepted:
15
04
2020
entrez:
9
6
2020
pubmed:
9
6
2020
medline:
9
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent heart failure studies have associated lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels with improved morbidity/mortality outcomes during pharmaceutical treatment, and better clinical outcomes during neuromodulation (NM) with carotid nerve plexus stimulation for HFrEF when NT-proBNP < 1600 pg/ml. Whether baseline NT-proBNP is associated with HFrEF responsiveness to NM using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has not been examined. Hence, we evaluated the interaction of baseline NT-proBNP with changes in symptoms and function that occurred during chronic VNS in the ANTHEM-HF study. A repeated measures, generalized-estimating, equations model evaluated the relationship of baseline NT-proBNP values above and below 1600 pg/ml to symptomatic and functional responses in ANTHEM-HF. Median (interquartile range; maximum) NT-proBNP was 868 (322, 1875; 14,656) pg/ml (N = 58). Heart rate (HR), HR variability (SDNN), 6-minute walk distance, MLWHF mean score, and NYHA improved significantly, independent of baseline NT-proBNP. While there was a statistical interaction between baseline NT-proBNP and better LVEF improvement during VNS, LVEF improved overall in the study cohort (N = 60; 32 ± 7 to 37 ± 10%; p = 0.0042), and in those patients whose baseline NT-proBNP was below the median baseline NT-proBNP value (n = 29; 36 ± 6 to 42 ± 10%; p < 0.0025)] or above this value (n = 29; 29 ± 7 to 32 ± 9%; p < 0.05). In ANTHEM-HF, overall symptomatic and functional improvement during chronic VNS was independent of baseline NTproBNP. These are preliminary and hypothesis-generating findings, and the reason for a differing interaction between baseline NT-proBNP and response to CNPS and VNS remains unclear. It is anticipated that the ongoing ANTHEM-HFrEF Pivotal Study of VNS will provide additional insight.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent heart failure studies have associated lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels with improved morbidity/mortality outcomes during pharmaceutical treatment, and better clinical outcomes during neuromodulation (NM) with carotid nerve plexus stimulation for HFrEF when NT-proBNP < 1600 pg/ml. Whether baseline NT-proBNP is associated with HFrEF responsiveness to NM using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has not been examined. Hence, we evaluated the interaction of baseline NT-proBNP with changes in symptoms and function that occurred during chronic VNS in the ANTHEM-HF study.
METHODS
METHODS
A repeated measures, generalized-estimating, equations model evaluated the relationship of baseline NT-proBNP values above and below 1600 pg/ml to symptomatic and functional responses in ANTHEM-HF.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Median (interquartile range; maximum) NT-proBNP was 868 (322, 1875; 14,656) pg/ml (N = 58). Heart rate (HR), HR variability (SDNN), 6-minute walk distance, MLWHF mean score, and NYHA improved significantly, independent of baseline NT-proBNP. While there was a statistical interaction between baseline NT-proBNP and better LVEF improvement during VNS, LVEF improved overall in the study cohort (N = 60; 32 ± 7 to 37 ± 10%; p = 0.0042), and in those patients whose baseline NT-proBNP was below the median baseline NT-proBNP value (n = 29; 36 ± 6 to 42 ± 10%; p < 0.0025)] or above this value (n = 29; 29 ± 7 to 32 ± 9%; p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In ANTHEM-HF, overall symptomatic and functional improvement during chronic VNS was independent of baseline NTproBNP. These are preliminary and hypothesis-generating findings, and the reason for a differing interaction between baseline NT-proBNP and response to CNPS and VNS remains unclear. It is anticipated that the ongoing ANTHEM-HFrEF Pivotal Study of VNS will provide additional insight.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32509959
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.100520
pii: S2352-9067(20)30087-7
pii: 100520
pmc: PMC7264752
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100520Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
RP, KS, SM, and RM were compensated by Cyberonics Incorporated for their work as clinical investigators in the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study. IA is a clinician, JLA is a researcher in neurocardiology, and DDG is a statistician who are contracted as consultants to LivaNova USA Incorporated. IL and LDC are employees and shareholders of LivaNova USA Incorporated.
Références
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016 Sep;27(9):1072-7
pubmed: 27221316
Circ Heart Fail. 2011 Sep;4(5):569-77
pubmed: 21715583
Circ Heart Fail. 2019 Nov;12(11):e005879
pubmed: 31722536
ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Feb;7(1):75-83
pubmed: 31984682
J Card Fail. 2016 Aug;22(8):639-42
pubmed: 26576716
J Card Fail. 2014 Nov;20(11):808-16
pubmed: 25187002
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Nov 10;54(20):1850-9
pubmed: 19892235
J Physiol. 2016 Jul 15;594(14):3877-909
pubmed: 27098459
JACC Heart Fail. 2017 Apr;5(4):241-252
pubmed: 28359411
JACC Heart Fail. 2015 Jun;3(6):487-496
pubmed: 25982108