Win ratio analysis of transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation to treat central sleep apnoea in heart failure.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
William T Abraham, Olaf Oldenburg, Mitja Lainscak, Rami Khayat, Jerryll Asin, Piotr Ponikowski, Robin Germany, Scott McKane, Maria Rosa Costanzo
{"title":"Win ratio analysis of transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation to treat central sleep apnoea in heart failure.","authors":"William T Abraham, Olaf Oldenburg, Mitja Lainscak, Rami Khayat, Jerryll Asin, Piotr Ponikowski, Robin Germany, Scott McKane, Maria Rosa Costanzo","doi":"10.1002/ehf2.15074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is present in 20-40% of heart failure (HF) patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and health status. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) is an available treatment for CSA in HF patients. The impact on HF outcomes is incompletely understood. The win ratio (WR) allows inclusion of multiple endpoint components, considers the relative severity of each component, and permits assessment of recurrent events in evaluation of clinical benefit.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A WR hierarchy was pre-defined for analysis of the HF subgroup of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial. The analysis used three hierarchical components to compare all treated to all control subjects: longest survival, lowest HF hospitalization rate, and ≥2-category difference in Patient Global Assessment at 6 months. Sensitivity analyses were performed substituting Epworth Sleepiness Scale and 4% oxygen desaturation index for the third component, and a 4-component WR hierarchy was also evaluated. Ninety-one HF subjects, 43 receiving TPNS and 48 in the control group, provided 2064 pairwise comparisons. More patients treated with TPNS experienced clinical benefit compared with control (WR 4.92, 95% confidence interval 2.27-10.63, P < 0.0001). There were 1111 (53.83%) winning pairwise comparisons for the treatment group and 226 (10.95%) for the control group. Similarly, large WRs were observed for all additional WR hierarchies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This WR analysis of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial suggests that TPNS may be superior to untreated CSA in HF patients with CSA using a hierarchical clinical benefit endpoint composed of mortality, HF hospitalization, and health status.</p>","PeriodicalId":11864,"journal":{"name":"ESC Heart Failure","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ESC Heart Failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.15074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Central sleep apnoea (CSA) is present in 20-40% of heart failure (HF) patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and health status. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) is an available treatment for CSA in HF patients. The impact on HF outcomes is incompletely understood. The win ratio (WR) allows inclusion of multiple endpoint components, considers the relative severity of each component, and permits assessment of recurrent events in evaluation of clinical benefit.

Methods and results: A WR hierarchy was pre-defined for analysis of the HF subgroup of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial. The analysis used three hierarchical components to compare all treated to all control subjects: longest survival, lowest HF hospitalization rate, and ≥2-category difference in Patient Global Assessment at 6 months. Sensitivity analyses were performed substituting Epworth Sleepiness Scale and 4% oxygen desaturation index for the third component, and a 4-component WR hierarchy was also evaluated. Ninety-one HF subjects, 43 receiving TPNS and 48 in the control group, provided 2064 pairwise comparisons. More patients treated with TPNS experienced clinical benefit compared with control (WR 4.92, 95% confidence interval 2.27-10.63, P < 0.0001). There were 1111 (53.83%) winning pairwise comparisons for the treatment group and 226 (10.95%) for the control group. Similarly, large WRs were observed for all additional WR hierarchies.

Conclusions: This WR analysis of the remedē® System Pivotal Trial suggests that TPNS may be superior to untreated CSA in HF patients with CSA using a hierarchical clinical benefit endpoint composed of mortality, HF hospitalization, and health status.

经静脉膈神经刺激治疗心力衰竭中枢性睡眠呼吸暂停的赢率分析。
目的:20%-40%的心力衰竭(HF)患者存在中枢性睡眠呼吸暂停(CSA),并与不良的临床疗效和健康状况有关。经静脉膈神经刺激(TPNS)是治疗心力衰竭患者中枢性睡眠呼吸暂停的一种可用方法。但其对 HF 预后的影响尚不完全清楚。获胜比(WR)允许纳入多个终点组成部分,考虑每个组成部分的相对严重性,并允许在评估临床获益时对复发事件进行评估:为分析 remedē® 系统关键试验中的高频亚组,预先定义了一个 WR 层次结构。该分析使用了三个层次成分来比较所有治疗对象和所有对照对象:最长存活期、最低高频住院率和 6 个月时患者总体评估差异≥2 类。进行了敏感性分析,将埃普沃思嗜睡量表和 4% 氧饱和度指数替换为第三个组成部分,并评估了 4 个组成部分的 WR 层次结构。91 名高频受试者中,43 人接受了 TPNS 治疗,48 人接受了对照组治疗,共进行了 2064 次配对比较。与对照组相比,更多接受 TPNS 治疗的患者获得了临床益处(WR 4.92,95% 置信区间为 2.27-10.63,P 结论:TPNS 治疗的临床益处更多:remedē® 系统关键试验的 WR 分析表明,采用由死亡率、心房颤动住院率和健康状况组成的分层临床获益终点,TPNS 治疗 CSA 的效果可能优于未治疗 CSA 的心房颤动患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ESC Heart Failure
ESC Heart Failure Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
7.90%
发文量
461
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: ESC Heart Failure is the open access journal of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to the advancement of knowledge in the field of heart failure. The journal aims to improve the understanding, prevention, investigation and treatment of heart failure. Molecular and cellular biology, pathology, physiology, electrophysiology, pharmacology, as well as the clinical, social and population sciences all form part of the discipline that is heart failure. Accordingly, submission of manuscripts on basic, translational, clinical and population sciences is invited. Original contributions on nursing, care of the elderly, primary care, health economics and other specialist fields related to heart failure are also welcome, as are case reports that highlight interesting aspects of heart failure care and treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信