Slide 1: Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation on Baroreflex Activation Therapy
Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation on Baroreflex Activation Therapy Results from the BeAT-HF Study Presenter: Michael R. Zile, MD Charles Ezra Daniel Professor of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina Chief, Division of Cardiology, RHJ Department of Veteran
Slide 2: Presenter Disclosure Information
Presenter Disclosure Information I will discuss research examining the development of new therapies in my presentation. I have financial relationships to disclose: Employee of: Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical University of SC Consultant for: Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia, CVRx, Cyclerion
Slide 3: BeAT-HF Top-Line Results
BeAT-HF Top-Line Results Exercise Quality of Life NT-proBNP Capacity (change from Baseline) (% change from Baseline) (change from Baseline) p<0.001 6 Month MLWHF 6 Month NT-proBNP 6 Month 6MHW Improvement Improvement Improvement p<0.001 p=0.004 BAT Control Diff BAT Control Diff BAT Control Diff Zile
Slide 4: Atrial Fibrillation and Ejection Fraction Distribution
Atrial Fibrillation Distribution Variable N (%) No AF 169 (64%) Paroxysmal 63 (24%) Permanent 8 (3%) Persistent 22 (8%) Unknown 2 (1%) Ejection Fraction Distribution Variable N (%) EF 35-25% 201 (76%) EF < 25% 63 (24%)
Slide 5: Outcomes by AF Status
Outcomes by Baseline AF Status 100 100% AF No AF AF No AF Change from Baseline to 6M Six Minute Hall Walk (meters) NYHA Class (% improved) Change from Baseline to 6M 80 67* 80% 57* 67% 60 50 61% 48 60% 40 37%* 40% 33% 20 28%* 30% 0 20% -8 -8 -20 0% BAT Control Diff BAT Control Diff BAT Control Diff
Slide 6: Outcomes by EF Status
Outcomes by Baseline EF Status 100 LVEF 35 – 25% LVEF < 25% 100% LVEF 35 – 25% LVEF < 25% NYHA Class (% improved) Change from Baseline to 80 76* Six Minute Hall Walk (meters) Change from Baseline to 6M 80% 56* 64% 67% 60 48 52 60% 6M 40 40% 34%* 36% 30% 31%* 20 0 20% -5 -20 0% -18 -40 BAT Control Di
Slide 7: Outcomes by Baseline EF and AF Status
Outcomes by Baseline EF and AF Status 6M Improvement BAT vs Control History of AF No History of AF BAT N=28 BAT N=62 LVEF 25– 35% Control N=46 Control N=51 6MHW (meters) 59* 51* MLWHF (points) -12* -15* NYHA(% improved) 30%* 37%* NT-proBNP (% Reduction) -11% -24% BAT N=5 BAT N=25 LVEF < 25% Control
Slide 8: Conclusions
Conclusions ➢ BAT significantly improved patient-centered symptomatic endpoints • quality of life score • exercise capacity, and • functional status. ➢ These results were supported by objective evidence of significant reduction of NT-proBNP. ➢ BAT is equally safe and effective in patients with or wi