ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Michael A. Acker
Randall C. Starling
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mann, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kubo, S. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mann, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kubo, S. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiac - other
Right arrowRelated Article

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:1226-1235
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Clinical Evaluation of the CorCap Cardiac Support Device in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Douglas L. Mann, MDa,*,*, Michael A. Acker, MDb, Mariell Jessup, MDb, Hani N. Sabbah, PhDc, Randall C. Starling, MDd, Spencer H. Kubo, MDe

a Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
b University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
c Henry Ford Health Care System, Detroit, Michigan
d The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
e Acorn Cardiovascular Inc, St. Paul, Minnesota

Accepted for publication March 19, 2007.

* Address correspondence to Dr Mann, Winters Center for Heart Failure Research, MS F524, 6565 Fannin, Houston, TX 77030 (Email: dmann{at}bcm.tmc.edu).


All authors disclose that they have a financial relationship with Acorn Cardiovascular Inc.

 

   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Background: Left ventricular (LV) remodeling is related to adverse outcomes in heart failure. The CorCap Cardiac Support Device (CSD; Acorn Cardiovascular, Inc, St. Paul, MN) is an implantable device that attenuates LV remodeling.

Methods: The Acorn trial assessed the safety and efficacy of the CSD in 300 heart failure patients. Patients needing mitral surgery (n = 193) were randomized to mitral surgery alone or mitral surgery plus CSD. Patients who did not need mitral surgery (n = 107) were randomized to medical therapy or medical therapy plus CSD. The primary endpoint was a clinical composite based on changes in patient vital status, the need for major cardiac procedures for worsening heart failure, and a change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

Results: The proportional odds ratio for the primary endpoint favored treatment with the CSD (1.73 confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 2.79; p = 0.024). The CSD-treated patients received significantly (p = 0.01) fewer cardiac procedures indicative of worsening heart failure and had an improvement in New York Heart Association class (p = 0.049). There was no significant difference in survival between groups (p = 0.85). Treatment with the CSD led to a decrease in LV end-diastolic (p = 0.009) and end-systolic volumes (p = 0.017), an increase in the LV sphericity index (p = 0.026), an improvement in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score (p = 0.04), and the Short Form-36 Questionnaire (p = 0.015). There was no evidence for a significant difference (p = 0.43) in serious adverse events between the treatment and control groups.

Conclusions: The results of the Acorn trial support the hypothesis that preventing LV remodeling with a CSD favorably impacts the untoward natural history of heart failure.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling, with an attendant change in the shape of the ventricle from a prolate ellipse to a more spherically shaped ventricle, is directly related to deterioration in LV performance and poor prognosis in patients with heart failure [1–3]. Left ventricular remodeling contributes to the progression of heart failure because of mechanical and energetic burdens created by the physiologically unfavorable changes in the remodeled ventricle [4]. Further, despite optimal medical therapy and BiV pacemakers [5, 6], heart failure advances in a significant number of patients. However, there are no device therapies that directly address the clinical problem of progressive LV remodeling.

The CorCap Cardiac Support Device (CSD; Acorn Cardiovascular Inc, St. Paul, MN) is a fabric mesh device that is surgically implanted around the heart. It is designed to provide circumferential diastolic support and reduce LV wall stress. In animal models of heart failure the CSD resulted in beneficial changes in LV structure and function consistent with reverse remodeling [7, 8]. Early safety studies have shown that the CSD was safe and was associated with long-term improvements in ventricular structure and function [9]. Here we report the results of the first randomized, prospective, controlled trial that evaluates the safety and efficacy of the CorCap CSD (Acorn Cardiovascular) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.


   Material and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Overall Study Design
The primary objective of the Acorn trial was to determine the safety and efficacy of the CorCap CSD in patients with heart failure who were receiving optimal medical therapy. Patients who had significant mitral regurgitation and a clinical indication for mitral valve replacement (MVR), as determined by the site clinician, were prospectively enrolled in the MVR stratum (193 patients), and were randomized to either treatment (MVR surgery plus CSD) or control (MVR surgery alone). Patients without a clinical indication for mitral surgery were prospectively enrolled in the no-MVR stratum, and were randomized to either treatment (CSD implant plus optimal medical therapy) or control (optimal medical therapy alone). There were 29 centers in the United States and Canada who participated in the trial (Appendix 1). Partial results of patients in the MVR stratum only (n = 193) have been reported previously [10].

Patients
Eligible patients had New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV heart failure, were between the ages of 18 and 80 years, and had heart failure of ischemic or nonischemic etiology. All patients had an LV ejection fraction 35% or less, LV end diastolic dimension 60 mm or greater or an LV end-diastolic dimension index 30 mm/m2 or greater, a six-minute walk test less than 450 meters, and acceptable laboratory and pulmonary function tests. All patents received an optimal medication regimen that included a diuretic (as needed), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers if ACE intolerant) and a beta-blocker (for at least three months) prior to randomization. The doses of these background medications were stable for at least one month prior to enrollment. Patients in the MVR stratum could also be enrolled with NYHA class II symptoms and an ejection fraction 45% or less. Exclusion criteria have been described previously [11]. The Institutional Review Board of each center approved the study protocol and all patients gave written informed consent.

Enrollment, Baseline Surgery, and Follow-Up
Baseline testing included chest X-ray, blood tests, transthoracic echocardiogram, electrocardiogram, maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test, six-minute walk test and quality of life evaluation with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Questionnaire. In addition, patients had an assessment of NYHA class made by the site physician and by a blinded core laboratory, using a validated instrument [12]. Randomization was stratified by site and stratum using random permuted blocks. The control group of the no-MVR stratum did not undergo any surgery; crossover from control to treatment was not permitted.

Surgical implants were performed under general anesthesia using standard sternotomy approach (as described in reference 9). Transesophageal echocardiograms were monitored to ensure that the LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) was not reduced by more than 10%, to minimize the potential for any adverse events related to the fit of the device. Patients were seen at three months, six months, and then every six months thereafter. Blood tests, echocardiograms, six-minute walk tests, and quality of life surveys were completed at all visits. Cardiopulmonary exercise tests were completed at the six and 12 month visits. Data on events (ie, survival status, hospitalizations, adverse events, major cardiac procedures) were collected on all patients until the common closing date, which was prespecified to be after the last enrolled patient had been followed for one year.

Core laboratories, blinded to treatment, assessed NYHA status, echocardiograms, and cardiopulmonary exercise tests. The Clinical Events Review Committee (CERC) adjudicated all deaths, serious adverse events, and any adverse events considered device-related. The CERC also adjudicated major cardiac procedures (biventricular [BiV] pacing, coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat mitral valve and tricuspid valve surgery) blinded to treatment status, to determine whether the procedure was associated with clear evidence of progressive heart failure. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) convened on a regular basis to review aggregate data summarized by treatment group.

Statistical Analysis
The data analysis plan specified that both MVR and non-MVR treatment strata would be analyzed together. The primary endpoint was a change in a composite ordinal endpoint that was based on three components: vital status (alive or dead), the occurrence of a major cardiac procedure indicative of or worsening of heart failure, and a change in NYHA status. Patients were considered "improved" if they were alive, had not experienced a major cardiac procedure indicative of worsening heart failure, and had improved by at least one NYHA class compared with baseline. Patients were considered "unchanged" if they were alive, had not experienced a major cardiac procedure, and NYHA was unchanged from baseline. Patients were considered "worsened" if they had died, had experienced a major cardiac procedure, or they had deteriorated by at least one NYHA class compared with baseline. To qualify for the primary endpoint, deaths (all cause) and major cardiac procedures could have occurred any time from enrollment to the common closing date (July 4, 2004). Major cardiac procedures were adjudicated by the CERC, who were blinded to treatment status; only those procedures adjudicated to be associated with worsening heart failure were counted in the primary endpoint. The change in NYHA class in the primary data analysis was determined as the difference between the core lab NYHA class determined at baseline and the Core lab NYHA class determined at last available follow-up. Because the Core lab NYHA instrument was implemented after the trial was initiated, multiple imputation was used in the analysis of the primary endpoint. The model followed the approach developed by Rubin [13], creating a set of 100 imputations from Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using four predictor variables measured at baseline: site NYHA, MLHF score, six-minute walk distance, and SF-36 physical functioning score. The resulting imputed NYHA values were rounded off to the nearest whole number as recommended by Schafer [14]. To confirm the results of the imputation model we analyzed the elements of the primary endpoint by examining patient status at the final follow-up visit. The distribution of outcomes was compared using proportional odds model, with the clinical site and stratum as stratifying factors. Data on events (ie, survival status, hospitalizations, adverse events, major cardiac procedures) were collected on all patients until the common closing date, which was prespecified to be after the last enrolled patient had been followed for one year.

Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality or rehospitalization, total number of all-cause hospitalizations; hospital days and intensive care unit days for cardiac reasons; change in NYHA functional class; change in six-minute walk distance, change in quality of life as determined by the MLHF and SF-36 questionnaires; change in LVEDD, LV end-systolic dimension, ejection fraction, LV volumes, mitral regurgitation and LV sphericity, change in peak oxygen consumption, anaerobic threshold, and exercise time; and the incidence of major cardiac procedures. Safety endpoints included the incidence of deaths, serious adverse events, and cause specific adverse events. All efficacy and safety endpoints were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Cumulative survival curves for the risk of death, adverse events, and major cardiac procedures were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and significance assessed by the log-rank statistic. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios. For continuous variables, comparisons of changes from baseline to 6 to 24 months were evaluated with longitudinal regression analysis, a mixed-effects model in which follow-up visit was the repeated measure and the baseline value of the response was included as a covariate. All differences were considered significant at the p less than 0.05 level (two-sided).

Within each stratum patients were randomized in a 1:1 allocation between treatment and control. The sample size of 300 patients was estimated to provide 90% power for a proportional odds ratio of 2.15 at the p less than 0.05 (2-sided) level.

Clinical decisions involving device therapies and surgical implants typically require optimizing patient selection criteria so that patients who receive a device will have best clinical outcomes when compared with patients who did not receive the device [15]. To this end, we performed a cumulative trends analysis (see Focused Cohort Analysis in Appendix 2) that was used to identify the baseline characteristics of patients with the largest and most consistent treatment versus control effect. Similar analyses of the primary endpoint were comparable in this patient subset.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
The study enrolled 300 patients at 29 centers. At the common closing date (July 4, 2004) the median duration of follow-up was 22.9 months, with a range of 12 to 48 months. The total patient-years of follow-up were 504 years. Table 1 summarizes baseline demographics. Overall the treatment and control groups were well-balanced; there were, however, small but statistically significant differences with respect to gender and peak oxygen consumption. In addition, diastolic blood pressure was significant between treatment and control groups in the MVR stratum. To account for these differences, adjustments for baseline covariates were applied to the analysis of the primary endpoint, by adding gender, peak oxygen consumption at baseline, and diastolic blood pressure at baseline to the proportional odds model. Table 1 shows that the patients enrolled in the treatment and control group had advanced disease, as evidenced by the LV end-diastolic dimensions, LV ejection fraction, baseline peak oxygen consumption, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure scores. Background medical therapy included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors-angiotensin receptor blockers (97%), beta blockers (85%), aldosterone antagonists (47%), and diuretics (98%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Baseline Characteristics
 
Surgery
As shown in Figure 1, of the 148 patients assigned to CorCap CSD treatment, nine patients did not undergo CSD implantation, because they refused surgery (n = 8) or expired prior to surgery (n = 1). In the MVR stratum, there were three deaths (one control, two treatment) that occurred within 30 days of initial surgery (3 of 193 deaths = 1.6% operative mortality). In the no-MVR stratum, there were five deaths in the 30-day operative period. However, this included one patient who died on the evening of randomization prior to surgery, so that the actual operative mortality rate was four of 51 implants (7.8%). These four deaths were reviewed for patient and operative techniques. Specific recommendations were implemented regarding use of cardiopulmonary bypass and intraaortic balloon pumps in cases of marked hemodynamic instability during implantation. With these additional safety precautions, there were no operative deaths in the last 24 implants.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 1. Randomization, treatment, and vital status of patients in the Acorn trial. (CorCap [Acorn Cardiovascular]; MV = mitral valve.)

 
Effect on the Primary Endpoint
Vital status was available in all but one patient, who dropped out of the study and refused contact. Table 2 summarizes the primary endpoint of the trial. When compared with the control group, more treatment patients were considered improved (38 vs 27%), and fewer were considered worsened (37 vs 45%). The proportional odds analysis favored treatment with the CSD (1.73 [95% CI: 1.07 to 2.79]; p = 0.024) indicating that patients in the treatment group had 73% better odds of being in a better category than the control group. To confirm the results of the imputation model we analyzed the elements of the primary endpoint by examining patient status at the final follow-up visit, as specified in the protocol. Moreover, there was a significant difference (p = 0.042) favoring CSD treatment (data not shown) when patient functional status was examined at the time of the 12 month visit, thus confirming the robustness of the proportional odds analysis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Composite Endpoint
 
Among the individual components of the clinical composite, there was a significant reduction in the need for major cardiac procedures in the treatment group. Figure 2 shows the Kaplan-Meier freedom from a major cardiac procedure was significantly lower in the control group (p = 0.01). There were 21 procedures in 19 patients in the treatment group, compared with 48 procedures in 33 patients in the control group (p < 0.01). The treatment group had fewer patients with cardiac transplants (7 vs 16), LVAD implants (3 vs 8), repeat mitral valve surgeries (1 vs 3), BiV pacemaker implants (10 vs 16), and tricuspid valve surgeries (0 vs 2). If BiV pacemakers were excluded from the analysis, the treatment versus control difference still remained significant (10 vs 23; p = 0.01). There was no difference in survival between the treatment and control groups (Kaplan-Meier, p = 0.85). Over the entire duration of follow-up, there were 25 deaths among 152 patients in the control group and 25 deaths among 148 patients in the treatment group (p = not significant). There were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups with respect to the mode of death. Importantly, none of the deaths adjudicated by the CERC were considered to be device- related. For NYHA class by itself, the treatment group had more patients improve by at least one class (45 vs 33%) and fewer patients either unchanged (36 vs 47%) or worsened by at least one class (19 vs 20%). The proportional odds ratio for this distribution was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.00 to 3.02; p = 0.049).


Figure 2
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier curves for freedom from major cardiac procedures (MCP) in both the cardiac support device treatment and control groups. The treatment group was significantly better than the control group (p = 0.01).

 
Effect on the Secondary Endpoints
Figure 3 summarizes the longitudinal regression analyses for the changes in cardiac structure. The control group demonstrated a progressive decrease in LVEDV (Fig 3A), possibly related to the effects of the mitral valve surgery among patients in the MVR stratum and (or) the optimal background medication regimen. The treatment group showed a significantly greater decrease than the control group (p = 0.009). The changes in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) showed a similar pattern. The control and treatment groups both demonstrated a progressive decrease in LVESV; however, the decrease in LVESV was significantly greater (p = 0.017) in the treatment group when compared with controls (Fig 3B). Because the increased number of women enrolled in the treatment arm may have affected the remodeling process [16], we repeated the above analysis after correcting for gender: the results were similar (p = 0.014), indicating that our results were unaffected by gender. When compared with baseline, there was a significant increase in LVEF at 12 months (p = 0.0009) in the CSD-treated group but not in the controls (p = 0.65); however, the changes in LVEF between groups over 12 months was not significant (p = 0.45) (Fig 3C). Figure 3D shows that the LV sphericity index (ratio of end-diastolic length to end-diastolic width) was significantly greater in the treatment group (p = 0.026), indicating that the LV was returning towards a more elliptical shape.


Figure 3
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 3. Change in left ventricular (LV) structure in the cardiac support device (CSD) treatment and control groups. (A) Change in LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (mL) from baseline. (B) change in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) (mL) from baseline. (C) Change in LV ejection fraction (EF) (units) from baseline. (D) Change in LV sphericity index (ratio of LV long axis to LV short axis) at 3, 6, and 12 months.

 
The treatment group demonstrated a significantly greater (p = 0.04) decrease in MLHF scores compared with the control group, consistent with an improvement in heart failure quality of life (Fig 4A). For SF-36, when compared with the control group, the treatment group showed a significantly (p = 0.015) greater improvement in the physical function domain (Fig 4B). Data on walk tests and maximal exercise tests were not interpretable because of data missing for cause predominately in the control group.


Figure 4
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 4. Change in quality of life scores in the cardiac support device (CSD) treatment and control groups. (A) Change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score from baseline; (B) change in Short Form-36 Questionnaire (SF-36) score from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months.

 
Adverse Events
Table 3 provides the number of patients experiencing serious adverse events (AEs). There were 78% of patients with a serious AE in the control group, compared with 81% in the treatment group (p = 0.43). The number of patients and the type of AEs were not statistically different between the treatment and control groups. Special attention was given to the hypothetical concern of constrictive physiology. However, there were no AEs related to constrictive physiology and the comprehensive echo surveillance program did not detect any sustained changes of constriction.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Adverse Events
 
The total number of all cause rehospitalizations occurring during the 22 month median follow-up period was similar in the treatment and control groups (305 vs 307; p = 0.44). The median length of stay for rehospitalization was 3.0 days in the treatment group compared with 4.0 days in the control group (p = 0.19). The treatment group had a total of 1,760 rehospitalization days versus 3,029 days in the control group (p = 0.68). These differences favored the treatment group, but were not significant statistically.

Effect on the Primary Endpoint by Treatment Stratum
Although this study was not powered to detect significant differences in the individual strata, we separately examined patients undergoing concomitant MV surgery (MVR stratum) and in whom the only surgical intervention was CorCap implantation (no-MVR stratum). This analysis (Table 4) showed that the proportional odds analysis of the no-MVR treatment stratum favored CSD treatment with a proportional odds ratio of 2.57 (CI: 1.09 to 6.08; p = 0.032) indicating that treatment patients had 257% better odds of being in a better category than the control group. Similarly, in the MVR treatment stratum there was a trend toward improvement with the CSD, with a proportional odds ratio of 1.51 (CI: 0.84 to 2.72; p = 0.17). An interaction test examining potential differences between MVR and no-MVR was not significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Composite Endpoint by Treatment Stratum
 
Focused Cohort Analysis
Cumulative trends analysis indicated that LVEDD indexed to body surface area (LVEDDi) was the best predictor of maximal treatment effect of the CorCap CSD implant. Specifically, patients with an intermediate LVEDDi that was 30 mm/m2 or greater and 40 mm/m2 or less benefited the most from the CorCap CSD. This group, which was termed the "focused cohort," included 159 patients (53% of the original cohort). There were similar numbers of patients excluded from both ends of the LVEDDi spectrum (ie, <30 mm/m2 and >40 mm/m2). The baseline characteristics of the 159 patients in the focused cohort were similar to the original 300 patient cohort. The primary composite endpoint of the focused cohort analysis yielded an odds ratio of 2.45 (p = 0.011). The higher odds ratio was consistent with the intent of the post hoc subgroup analysis to identify patients with the greatest benefit and smallest risk. Moreover, all three components of the primary endpoint favored the treatment group, with a 34% reduction in mortality (p = 0.17), a significant reduction in major cardiac procedures (p = 0.013), and a trend toward improvement in NYHA class (p = 0.18).

Device safety was maintained in the focused cohort. There were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in terms of the number of patients with a serious adverse event (SAE) (p = 0.88) or the Kaplan-Meier time to either death or SAE (p = 0.79).

Analysis of the two strata revealed consistent evidence of safety and efficacy (Table 5). In the no-MVR stratum of the focused cohort, the primary composite endpoint demonstrated an odds ratio of 8.33 (CI: 1.85 to 37.6, p = 0.006). In the MVR stratum of the focused cohort, the primary composite endpoint also favored treatment with a CSD with an odds ratio of 1.81 (CI: 0.78 to 4.19; p = 0.160).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5 Composite Endpoint by Treatment Stratum: Focused Cohort
 

   Comment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
The Acorn trial demonstrates that use of a CSD in patients with heart failure leads to salutary changes in LV structure (decreased LV volumes and decreased LV sphericity) and significant improvements in patient functional status and quality of life. The primary endpoint showed that CSD-treated patients had a 73% better odds of having a better clinical outcome relative to patients in the control arm (1.73 [CI: 1.07 to 2.79; p = 0.024]). The individual components of the clinical composite demonstrated that CSD treatment resulted in a significant reduction in the need for major cardiac procedures. The Kaplan-Meier curves of freedom major cardiac procedure diverged early, and continued to diverge over time (Fig 3), reflecting the greater need for invasive cardiac interventions in the control group. Indeed, the control group was twice as likely to receive a cardiac transplantation, left ventricular assist device, or repeat mitral and tricuspid valve surgeries. Because this trial was unblinded we considered the possibility that there may have been an inherent bias toward implantation of more BiV pacemakers in the control arm. However, when BiV pacemakers were excluded, the significant differences between the treatment and control groups persisted. Finally, survival rates, serious AEs, and hospitalizations were not significantly different between the control and treatment groups, indicating that the CSD was safe.

In the present study, we also observed a progressive decrease in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, as well as an increase in the LV sphericity index, consistent with the preclinical [7, 8] and early clinical studies [9]. Moreover, there was a significant increase in LVEF from baseline to 12 months in the CSD-treated patients, whereas there was no significant change in control patients. Taken together, these observations suggest that the use of the CSD leads to energetically favorable changes in the size and shape of the ventricle that are accompanied by improvements in patient functional status.

One potential concern with any therapy that requires an invasive surgical intervention is whether the device can be implanted with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The present results show that the CSD was safe and did not result in a significant increase in morbidity or mortality. There was no difference in the number and types of AEs between treatment and control groups. Moreover, there were no AEs that were related to cardiac constriction. Overall survival and hospitalization were not different between the groups.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in the individual treatment strata, the results demonstrated a consistency of risk to benefit considerations. In the no-MVR stratum, patients experienced greater risk with the CSD implant than control patients, (no implant in the control group) but they also had a greater benefit (odds ratio = 2.57). In the MVR stratum, the benefit was less (odds ratio = 1.51) but there was minimal risk in the CorCap CSD implant treatment group when compared with control patients, because all patients were already undergoing mitral valve surgery.

Because of the invasive nature of device implantation, it has been suggested that patient selection criteria should be individualized and optimized so that devices are implanted in those patients who are the most likely to receive a maximal benefit from the device when compared with subjects who do not receive a device [15]. To this end we utilized a cumulative trends analysis (see Appendix 2) to identify a "focused cohort of 159 patients" who had the largest and most consistent treatment effect. This analysis showed that patients with an LVEDDi that was 30 mm/m2 or greater and 40 mm/m2 or less were the most likely to benefit from the CSD treatment, based on analysis of the primary composite endpoint (OR = 2.45; p = 0.011), freedom from major cardiac procedures (p = 0.013), and mortality (34% decrease; p = 0.17). Moreover, the treatment effects were consistent in the no-MVR and MVR strata, with the largest benefit in the no-MVR stratum. These more selective patient criteria should prove useful in selecting those patients who will be most likely to benefit from CSD implantation.

One limitation of the Acorn trial is that it was unblinded. Several measures were employed to minimize bias, including the use of a composite primary endpoint that incorporated an objective endpoint, namely all cause mortality. Second, the use of major cardiac procedures for worsening heart failure involved cardiac transplantation and LVAD implantation, which are reserved for patients with clear evidence of refractory heart failure. The assessment of other major cardiac procedures indicative of worsening heart failure (repeat valve surgery and implantation of BiV pacemakers) was adjudicated by an independent CERC that was blinded to treatment allocation. Finally, Core labs for the determination of NYHA echocardiograms and maximal exercise tests were performed by a central assessor who was blinded to treatment allocation. However, because the NYHA core lab was implemented after trial enrollment was initiated, 174 patients had to have baseline NYHA status imputed. Nonetheless, it bears emphasis that only the baseline value (prior to randomization) was missing from the data set. Two additional issues maybe important for the potential clinical application of the CorCap Cardiac Support Device. First, the implantation of the mesh support will result in adhesions, similar to those observed in all cardiac implant procedures. These adhesions may complicate subsequent cardiac surgery. Second, while there has been no clinical evidence of pericardial constriction in routine surveillance six-month echocardiograms thus far, we cannot formally exclude this eventuality as a rare to late complication. Accordingly, long-term surveillance is planned for these patients.

In conclusion, results of the Acorn trial support the hypothesis that preventing LV remodeling with a CSD favorably impacts the untoward natural history of heart failure. Insofar as there are no therapies that are specifically designed to address the problem of cardiac remodeling, and many patients will have progressive heart failure in spite of intensive medical regimes and BiV pacemakers, the CorCap CSD fits an unmet clinical need for patients with advanced heart failure and LV dilation. Accordingly, the results of the present study show that the CorCap CSD represents a novel adjunctive therapy for stabilizing the progression of heart failure in patients who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy.


   Appendix 1
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Clinical Centers
Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oaklawn, IL: M. Slaughter, M. Silver, T. George, H. Lonergan-Thomas; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY: T. LeJemtel, M. Camacho, N. Cesare, P. Sicilia; Baylor College of Medicine/VAMC Houston, TX: E. Soltero, D. Mann, T. Lynch; Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA: R. Shemin, G. Philippides, M. Cheney; Bryan LGH Heart Institute, Lincoln, NE: E. Raines, S. Krueger, V. Norton; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA: K. Magliato, S. Khan, L. Defensor, M. De Robertis, D. Gallegos; Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH: N. Smedira, R. Starling, R. Schott, B. Gus; Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY: N. Edwards, D. Mancini, K. Idrissi, J. Dimitui Vallarta; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC: C. Milano, S. Russell, S. Welsh, A. Skye, R. Larsen; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI: R. Brewer, B. Czerska, K. Leszczynski, N. Wulbrecht; Hospital of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: M. Acker, M. Jessup, S. Baker, M. O’Hara; Jewish Hospital at University of Louisville, Louisville, KY: R. Dowling, G. Bhat, L. Muncy, K. Daley; Nebraska Heart Institute, Lincoln, NE: D. Gangahar, K. Ayala, L. Taylor; New England Medical Center at Tufts University, Boston, MA: K. Khabbaz, D. DeNofrio, C. Grodman; Newark Beth Israel, Newark, NJ: D. Goldstein, M. Zucker, J. Casida; Oschner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, LA: C. Van Meter, M. Mehra, B. Harris; Penn State/Milton Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA: W. Pae, J. Boehmer, P. Ulsh, K. McFadden; Royal Victoria Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, PQ, Canada: R. Cecere, N. Giannetti, C. Barber; St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO: A. Aharon, P. Hauptman, M. Jacob; Stanford Univ. Medical Center/Kaiser Permanente, Stanford, CA: R. Robbins, M. Fowler, D. Weisshaar, A. Mullin, K. Town; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL: J. Kirklin, B. Rayburn, K. Harper; University of Florida/Shands Hospital, Gainesville, FL: E. Staples, J. Aranda, D. Leach; University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD: J. Gammie, S. Gottlieb, J. Marshall; University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI: S. Bolling, K. Aaronson, M. Jessup, P. Obriot; University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN: S. Park, L. Miller, J. Graziano; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA: K. McCurry, S. Murali, T. Ryan, D. Zaldonis; VA Medical Center San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, CA: M. Madani, R. Shabetai, C. Jaynes, R. Cremo, N. Gardetto; VA Medical Center Minneapolis, Minneapolis, MN: H. Ward, I. Anand, J. Whitlock; Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC: M. Dullum, B. Carlos, J. Richmond, C. Bither, W. Varmer; Steering Committee: D. Mann (PI), M. Acker, M. Jessup, H. Sabbah, R. Starling; Data and Safety Monitoring Committee: G. Francis (Chair), J. Neaton, D. Homans, C. O’Connor, W. Curtis. Clinical Events Review Committee: S. Goldstein (Chair), F. Spinale, J. Lindenfeld.


   Appendix 2
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Statistical Rationale for Cumulative Trends Analysis
To identify patient subgroups within the Acorn pivotal trial in which safety and efficacy endpoints were optimized, a graphical display of cumulative trends analysis was employed along with standard statistical methods of analysis. Important guidance on strategy and methodology was provided by Califf and De Mets (Circulation 2002;106:1015–21).

To accomplish this, 19 different baseline characteristics, such as various measures of heart size, clinical history metrics, and other physiologic characteristics were identified as being of potential value in predicting patient outcomes. Also, several outcome measures of safety and efficacy were chosen as being of greatest interest in identifying "responding" patients. These screening outcomes measures included death, HF related hospitalizations, changes in LV size, and change in quality of life.

Then, cumulative trends analysis was applied to each combination of outcome and potential predictor, with the objective being to find a patient subgroup of reasonable size in which a single predictor showed consistent enhancement of multiple signals of safety and efficacy. Consistent improvement among many outcome measures would provide assurance that the identified efficacy in the patient subgroup is a real measure of clinical improvement, as opposed to a purely probabilistic outcome.

The analysis begins with the choice of a particular outcome measure (eg, death), indexed against a potential baseline predictor (eg, left ventricular end diastolic dimension indexed to body surface area, abbreviated LVEDDi). Using the entire 300-patient cohort, a scatterplot can be created with LVEDDi on the x axis and treatment-control difference in death on the y axis as follows:

• Sort the patient population in increasing order of LVEDDi.
• On the x axis, plot the LVEDDi value for that patient.
• On the y axis, plot the cumulative treatment versus control difference in deaths for all patients with LVEDDi less than or equal to the value on the x axis.
• Connect the scatterplot points to create a line graph.

The value of this technique is that, by using cumulative treatment versus control difference as the variable on the y axis, one can immediately see the patient groups experiencing the greatest response to CorCap therapy in a simple visual fashion (see Appendix Fig. 1,). Patient groups in which the CorCap shows no or little efficacy will be flat (horizontal), while groups in which the CorCap treatment group displays high efficacy will have a steep positive slope. (Conversely, groups in which the treatment displays negative efficacy will have a negative slope.)


Figure 5
View larger version (73K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Appendix Fig 1. Graphic output: death or MCP. Sample display. (C = control; LVEDD = left ventricular end-diastolic dimension; MCP = major cardiac procedures; T = treatment).

 
This method is in contrast to formal statistical analyses, which attempt to identify predictors of key outcomes, such as multiple regression or covariate analyses. The inefficiency of such methods for identifying optimal patient subgroups is that, while a particular baseline characteristic (eg, age) may be predictive of an outcome of interest (eg, death), that predictivity tends to occur both in the treatment and control groups. That is, older patients tend to suffer higher mortality in both randomized groups in such a fashion that age, while it is predictive of death, is not predictive of the ability of the CorCap CSD to reduce mortality risk. That analysis requires a direct treatment versus control comparison, such as the method described above.

The example provided in Appendix Fig. 5 illustrates that the patients with LVEDDi between 30 and 40 mm/m2 show a strong positive slope, while patients outside of this group display a flat graph. This indicates that patients between 30 and 40 mm/m2 in LVEDDi in the treatment group are experiencing positive outcomes relative to the control group; ie, these are the patients in whom the efficacy of the CorCap CSD is concentrated.

This same graphic method was applied to all 19 baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEDDi was clearly the best patient characteristic that demonstrated a consistent pattern for all the key safety and efficacy outcomes.

Formal statistical analyses were then performed to validate that patient subgroups based on LVEDDi were indeed demonstrating different responses. For the analysis, patients were divided into three subgroups, including the less than 30 mm/m2 group, the greater than 30 mm/m2 and less than 40 mm/m2 group, and the greater than 40 mm/m2 group. These analyses confirmed that the greater than 30 mm/m2 and less than 40 mm/m2 group had a consistent benefit across all the endpoints and this benefit was greater than the responses in the two other subgroups. Neaton, D. Homans, C. O’Connor, W. Curtis. Clinical Events Review Committee: S. Goldstein (Chair), F. Spinale, J. Lindenfeld.


   Acknowledgments
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
References
 
The Acorn trial was funded by Acorn Cardiovascular (St. Paul, Minnesota).


   Footnotes
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
Acknowledgments
 References
 
* On behalf of the Acorn Trial Principal Investigators and Study Coordinators. Participating investigators and study centers are listed in Appendix 1. Back


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Material and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Appendix 1
 Appendix 2
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 

  1. Cohn JN. Structural basis for heart failure: ventricular remodeling and its pharmacological inhibition Circulation 1995;91:2504-2507.[Free Full Text]
  2. Douglas PS, Morrow R, Ioli A, Reicheck N. Left ventricular shape, afterload, and survival in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;13:311-315.[Abstract]
  3. Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Evans JC, Levy D. Left ventricular dilation and the risk of congestive heart failure in people without myocardial infarction N Engl J Med 1997;336:1350-1355.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Mann DL, Bristow MR. Mechanisms and models in heart failure: the biomechanical model and beyond Circulation 2005;111:2837-2849.[Free Full Text]
  5. Doughty RN, Whalley GA, Gamble G, MacMahon S, Sharpe N. Left ventricular remodeling with carvedilol in patients with congestive heart failure due to ischemic heart disease J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;29:1060-1066.
  6. St. John Sutton MG, Plappert T, Abraham WT, et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular size and function in chronic heart failure Circulation 2003;107:1985-1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Saavedra WF, Tunin RS, Paolocci N, et al. Reverse remodeling and enhanced adrenergic reserve from passive external support in experimental dilated heart failure J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:2069-2076.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Sabbah HN, Sharov VG, Gupta RC, et al. Reversal of chronic molecular and cellular abnormalities due to heart failure by passive mechanical ventricular containment Circ Res 2003;93:1095-1101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Oz MC, Konertz WF, Kleber FX, et al. Global surgical experience with the Acorn cardiac support device J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:983-991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Acker MA, Bolling S, Shemin R, et al. Mitral valve surgery in heart failure: insights from the Acorn Clinical Trial J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:568-577.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Mann DL, Acker MA, Jessup M, Sabbah HN, Starling RC, Kubo SH. Rationale, design, and methods for a pivotal randomized clinical trial for the assessment of a cardiac support device in patients with New York Health Association class III-IV heart failure J Card Fail 2004;10:185-192.[Medline]
  12. Kubo SH, Schulman S, Starling RC, Jessup M, Wentworth D, Burkhoff D. Development and validation of a patient questionnaire to determine New York Heart Association classification J Card Fail 2004;10:228-235.[Medline]
  13. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for non-response on surveysNew York: Wiley and Sons; 2005.
  14. Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate dataNew York: Chapman and Hall; 1977.
  15. Califf RM, DeMets DL. Principles from clinical trials relevant to clinical practice: part I Circulation 2002;106:1015-1021.[Free Full Text]
  16. Cheng A, Nguyen TC, Malinowski M, et al. Effects of undersized mitral annuloplasty on regional transmural left ventricular wall strains and wall thickening mechanisms Circulation 2006;114:I600-I609.[Medline]

Related Article

Sustained Benefits of the CorCap Cardiac Support Device on Left Ventricular Remodeling: Three Year Follow-up Results From the Acorn Clinical Trial
Randall C. Starling, Mariell Jessup, Jae K. Oh, Hani N. Sabbah, Michael A. Acker, Douglas L. Mann, and Spencer H. Kubo
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007 84: 1236-1242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
W.H. W. Tang and G. S. Francis
The Year in Heart Failure
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 11, 2008; 52(20): 1671 - 1678.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Circ Heart FailHome page
E. C. McGee Jr
Should Moderate or Greater Mitral Regurgitation Be Repaired in All Patients With LVEF <30%?
Circ Heart Fail, November 1, 2008; 1(4): 285 - 289.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
R. C. Starling, M. Jessup, J. K. Oh, H. N. Sabbah, M. A. Acker, D. L. Mann, and S. H. Kubo
Sustained Benefits of the CorCap Cardiac Support Device on Left Ventricular Remodeling: Three Year Follow-up Results From the Acorn Clinical Trial
Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2007; 84(4): 1236 - 1242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Michael A. Acker
Randall C. Starling
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mann, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kubo, S. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mann, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by Kubo, S. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiac - other
Right arrowRelated Article

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS