BACKGROUND:Adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) therapy is expected to be novel nonpharmacotherapy with hemodynamic effects on patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but sufficient evidence has not been obtained. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-week, open-label, randomized, controlled study was performed to confirm the cardiac function-improving effect of ASV therapy on CHF patients. At 39 institutions, 213 outpatients with CHF, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was <40% and who had mild to severe symptoms [New York Heart Association (NYHA) class: ≥II], were enrolled. After excluding 8 patients, 102 and 103 underwent ASV plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) [ASV group] and GDMT only [control group], respectively. The primary endpoint was LVEF, and the secondary endpoints were HF deterioration, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and clinical composite response (CCR: NYHA class+HF deterioration). LVEF and BNP improved significantly at completion against the baseline values in the 2 groups. However, no significant difference was found between these groups. HF deterioration tended to be suppressed. The ASV group showed a significant improvement in CCR corroborated by significant improvements in NYHA class and ADL against the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Under the present study's conditions, ASV therapy was not superior to GDMT in the cardiac function-improving effect but showed a clinical status-improving effect, thus indicating a given level of clinical benefit.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) therapy is expected to be novel nonpharmacotherapy with hemodynamic effects on patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but sufficient evidence has not been obtained. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-week, open-label, randomized, controlled study was performed to confirm the cardiac function-improving effect of ASV therapy on CHFpatients. At 39 institutions, 213 outpatients with CHF, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was <40% and who had mild to severe symptoms [New York Heart Association (NYHA) class: ≥II], were enrolled. After excluding 8 patients, 102 and 103 underwent ASV plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) [ASV group] and GDMT only [control group], respectively. The primary endpoint was LVEF, and the secondary endpoints were HF deterioration, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and clinical composite response (CCR: NYHA class+HF deterioration). LVEF and BNP improved significantly at completion against the baseline values in the 2 groups. However, no significant difference was found between these groups. HF deterioration tended to be suppressed. The ASV group showed a significant improvement in CCR corroborated by significant improvements in NYHA class and ADL against the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Under the present study's conditions, ASV therapy was not superior to GDMT in the cardiac function-improving effect but showed a clinical status-improving effect, thus indicating a given level of clinical benefit.
Authors: Olaf Oldenburg; Birgit Wellmann; Thomas Bitter; Henrik Fox; Anika Buchholz; Eric Freiwald; Dieter Horstkotte; Karl Wegscheider Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Adrian V Hernandez; Anne Jeon; Jack Denegri-Galvan; Fernando Ortega-Loayza; Monica Felix-Moscoso; Vinay Pasupuleti; Roop Kaw Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Martin R Cowie; Holger Woehrle; Karl Wegscheider; Christiane Angermann; Marie-Pia d'Ortho; Erland Erdmann; Patrick Levy; Anita K Simonds; Virend K Somers; Faiez Zannad; Helmut Teschler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245