1 / 14

American College of Cardiology. Chicago. Late Braking Clinical Trial Session. Apr.04. 2016

Non-invasive Lung IMPEDANCE-Guided Preemptive Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial (IMPEDANCE-HF trial) Michael Kleiner Shochat, MD, BSc, PhD a , Avraham Shotan, MD a , David S Blondheim, MD a , Mark Kazatsker, MD a ,

deaglin
Download Presentation

American College of Cardiology. Chicago. Late Braking Clinical Trial Session. Apr.04. 2016

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Non-invasive Lung IMPEDANCE-Guided Preemptive Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial (IMPEDANCE-HF trial) Michael Kleiner Shochat, MD, BSc, PhDa, Avraham Shotan, MDa, David S Blondheim, MDa, Mark Kazatsker, MDa, Iris Dahan, MSITa, Aya Asif, MDa, Yoseph Rozenman, MDb, Ilia Kleiner, MDc, Jean Marc Weinstein, MBBS, FRCPc, Aaron Frimerman, MDa, Lubov Vasilenko, MDa, Simcha R Meisel, MD, MSca aHeart Institute, Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Hadera, Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel; bCardiovascular Institute, Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel, cCardiology Department, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva. American College of Cardiology. Chicago. Late Braking Clinical Trial Session. Apr.04. 2016 Presenter - Michael Kleiner Shochat Conflict of interest: Michael Kleiner Shochat is a co-founder and member of the board of directors of the RSMM Company that manufactured and supplied the devices for the study.

  2. Aim: • Our trial was performed to evaluate the hypothesis that- • Lung impedance-guided treatment reduces hospitalizations for Acute Heart Failure. • Inclusion criteria - Chronic Heart Failure patients Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction ≤35% New York Heart Association class II-IV

  3. Process Of Lung Fluid Accumulation Stable stage - There is no fluid accumulation in lung 3 STAGES OF HEART FAILURE: Lung fluid accumulation - without clinical signs Dramatic deterioration in patient’s condition & urgent hospitalization Current point where treatment starts Ideal point to start preemptive treatment

  4. Traditional Technologies VS RSMM Technology Traditional Impedance Technique TTI TTI EGM

  5. The Objective: Accurately Identifying the Lung Impedance (LI) Value Chest Wall Impedance 1 + Lung Impedance + Chest Wall Impedance 2 Transthoracic Impedance A-B (TTIAB)= Chest Wall Impedance (CWI) is NOISE Impedance A CWI1 Ω X500~ The Challenge: Identifying small changes in the Lung Impedance as 1-3 Ωfrom the total TTI as 1050 Ω Impossible Target Organ LI Ω X50~ The Solution: Elimination NOISEChest Wall Impedance (500 Ω+500 Ω)from Transthoracic Impedance (1050 Ω) makes identification small changes in the Lung Impedance Possible. CWI2 Ω X500~ B

  6. Study design: Randomized, single blinded, two centers. Study population. Efficacy endpoints. Mean age in both groups 67 y. Men – 80%. Both groups were well adjusted by baseline patient characteristics, baseline medications and parameters of physical examination. One year before randomization Randomization Monitoring Group (N=128). Mean = 48 m. FU Future Monitoring Group HF hospitalizations = 1.2/patients year 2 y 3 y 5 y 6 y 7 y 8 y 1 y 4 y Run in period (3m) for adjustment maximally possible guidelines recommended drug doses for CHF treatment. Future Control Group Control Group (N=128). Mean = 39 m. FU HF hospitalizations = 1.1/patients year Primary efficacy endpoints: 1. Acute heart failure hospitalizations up to 12 months. 2. Acute heart failure hospitalizations during entire follow up Secondary efficacy endpoints: 1. All –cause, Cardiac hospitalizations during entire follow up . 2. All-cause, Cardiac and Heart Failure mortality during entire follow up.

  7. Strategy of drug adjustment ∆LIR Baseline (dry) lung impedance (BLI). As if patient is healthy. 0% Patient’s status is very stable. No or very small interstitial congestion. NYHA class I – II. No need in additional treatment. -5% -10% -15% -18% -20% Target zone for adjustment treatment Patients became more congested but still no more complains -24% Beginning Heart Failure hospitalizations -25% -30% -35% -40% Increasing in congestions Increased risk of Heart Failure hospitalizations Hospitalizations for Heart Failure -45% -50% -55% (ΔLIR) = [current LI/BLI)-1]

  8. Results Rate of Heart Failure hospitalizations (per patient*year) P < 0.001 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 6 year 5 year 7 year 8 year Lung Impedance-guided treatment group Follow up period Control group treated by clinical assessment

  9. Results Hospitalizations Number of hospitalizations Number of hospitalizations Number of hospitalizations P < 0.0001 P < 0.0001 P < 0.0001 52% reduction in cardiac hospitalizations during entire period of follow up 39% reduction in all-cause hospitalizations during entire period of follow up 56% reduction in cardiac hospitalizations during entire period of follow up Follow Up period Follow Up period Follow Up period Cardiac Hospitalizations Heart Failure Hospitalizations All-cause Hospitalizations Method of statistics: Cox regression analyses

  10. Results Mortality 43% reduction in all-cause deaths during entire period of follow up 62% reduction in Heart Failure deaths during entire period of follow up 55% reduction in cardiac deaths during entire period of follow up P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.001 Follow Up period Follow Up period Follow Up period Heart Failure death All-cause Death Cardiac Death Method of statistics: Kaplan Meyer analyses

  11. Results ∆LIR Linear mixed effects regression model was used to evaluate differences between ∆LIR into and between groups. P < 0.001 Monitored Group Follow Up period Difference in pulmonary congestion between groups during follow up period Control Group

  12. Conclusions Data of “IMPEDANCE-HF” trial shows that Lung Impedance guided treatment in compare with treatment based on clinical assessment of HFrEF patients: Hospitalizations(Primary endpoint) 1. Reduces rate of HF hospitalizations during first year by 58%. 2. Reduces rate of HF hospitalizations during 4 years by 56%. Hospitalizations(Secondary endpoint) 3. Reduces rate of all-cause hospitalizations during 4 years by 39%. 4. Reduces rate of cardiac hospitalization during 4 years by 52%. 5. Reduces rate of Non-cardiac hospitalization during 4 years by 9%, (p=0.6). Deaths(Secondary endpoint) 7. Reduces rate of All-cause mortality during 4 years by 43%. 8. Reduces rate of Cardiac mortality during 4 years by 55%. 9. Reduces rate of Heart Failure mortality during 4 years by 62%. 10. No changes in Non-cardiac mortality during 4 years.

  13. These results support Non-invasive Lung Impedance technology is enough sensitive to detect a very early stage of evolving pulmonary congestion and Lung Impedance-guided treatment is reliable for improving hospitalization and survival of Heart Failure patients. Thank you very much for attention!

More Related