Background: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome—a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status—was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization. Results: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P =0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P =0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P =0.004). Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.

Background: Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is the gold standard method for surveillance of acute cardiac allograft rejection (ACAR) despite its invasive nature. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)–based myocardial tissue characterization allows detection of myocarditis. The feasibility of CMR-based surveillance for ACAR-induced myocarditis in the first year after heart transplantation is currently undescribed. Methods: CMR-based multiparametric mapping was initially assessed in a prospective cross-sectional fashion to establish agreement between CMR- and EMB-based ACAR and to determine CMR cutoff values between rejection grades. A prospective randomized noninferiority pilot study was then undertaken in adult orthotopic heart transplant recipients who were randomized at 4 weeks after orthotopic heart transplantation to either CMR- or EMB-based rejection surveillance. Clinical end points were assessed at 52 weeks. Results: Four hundred one CMR studies and 354 EMB procedures were performed in 106 participants. Forty heart transplant recipients were randomized. CMR-based multiparametric assessment was highly reproducible and reliable at detecting ACAR (area under the curve, 0.92; sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 92%; negative predictive value, 99%) with greater specificity and negative predictive value than either T1 or T2 parametric CMR mapping alone. High-grade rejection occurred in similar numbers of patients in each randomized group (CMR, n=7; EMB, n=8; P =0.74). Despite similarities in immunosuppression requirements, kidney function, and mortality between groups, the rates of hospitalization (9 of 20 [45%] versus 18 of 20 [90%]; odds ratio, 0.091; P =0.006) and infection (7 of 20 [35%] versus 14 of 20 [70%]; odds ratio, 0.192; P =0,019) were lower in the CMR group. On 15 occasions (6%), patients who were randomized to the CMR arm underwent EMB for clarification or logistic reasons, representing a 94% reduction in the requirement for EMB-based surveillance. Conclusions: A noninvasive CMR-based surveillance strategy for ACAR in the first year after orthotopic heart transplantation is feasible compared with EMB-based surveillance. Registration: HREC/13/SVH/66 and HREC/17/SVH/80. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000672257.