Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ESC Heart Failure logoLink to ESC Heart Failure
. 2019 Jul 24;6(5):1052–1056. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12484

Background pharmacological therapy in the ANTHEM‐HF: comparison to contemporary trials of novel heart failure therapies

Rajendra K Premchand 1, Kamal Sharma 2, Sanjay Mittal 3, Rufino Monteiro 4, Imad Libbus 5, Jeffrey L Ardell 6, Douglas D Gregory 7, Bruce H KenKnight 5, Badri Amurthur 5, Lorenzo A DiCarlo 5, Inder S Anand 8,✉
PMCID: PMC6816059  PMID: 31339232

Abstract

Aims

Clinical trials of new heart failure (HF) therapies administer guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) as background pharmacologic treatment (BPT). In the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study, addition of autonomic regulation therapy to GDMT significantly improved left ventricular function, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6 min walk distance, and quality of life in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A post hoc analysis was performed to compare BPT in ANTHEM‐HF with two other trials of novel HF therapies: the PARADIGM‐HF study of sacubitril–valsartan and the SHIFT study of ivadrabine. All three studies evaluated patients with HFrEF, and the recommendations for use of GDMT were similar. A left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% was required for entry into ANTHEM‐HF and PARADIGM‐HF and ≤35% for SHIFT. NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms were required for entry into ANTHEM‐HF, and patients with predominantly NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms were enrolled in PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT.

Methods and results

Data on BPT were obtained from peer‐reviewed publications and the public domain. Pearson's χ 2 test was used to evaluate differences in proportions, and Student's unpaired t‐test was used to evaluate differences in mean values. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer in ANTHEM‐HF: 3 months vs. 1 month in PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT, respectively. When compared with PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT, more patients in ANTHEM‐HF received beta‐blockers (100% vs. 93% and 89%, P < 0.04 and P < 0.007) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (75% vs. 55% and 61%, P < 0.002 and P < 0.03). More patients in PARADIGM‐HF received an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker than in ANTHEM‐HF or SHIFT (100% vs. 85%, P < 0.0001, and 100% vs. 91%, P < 0.001), which was related to PARADIGM's design. When beta‐blocker doses in ANTHEM‐HF and SHIFT were compared, significantly fewer patients in ANTHEM‐HF received doses ≥100% of target (10% vs. 23%, P < 0.02), and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target (17% vs. 26%, P = 0.11). When ANTHEM‐HF and PARADIGM‐HF were compared, more patients in ANTHEM‐HF tended to receive doses ≥100% of target (10% vs. 7%, P = 0.36), and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target (17% vs. 20%, P = 0.56).

Conclusions

Background treatment with GDMT in ANTHEM‐HF compared favourably with that in two other contemporary trials of new HF therapies. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer, and GDMT remained unchanged for the study's duration. These findings serve to further support the potential role of autonomic regulation therapy as an adjunct to GDMT for patients with HFrEF.

Keywords: Autonomic nervous system, Autonomic regulation therapy, Guideline‐directed medical therapy, Heart failure, Neuromodulation, Vagus nerve stimulation

1. Introduction

The validity and the outcomes of clinical trials of new heart failure (HF) therapies are characteristically considered in the context of the background pharmacologic treatment that patients receive. Usual and customary pharmacological treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) consists of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) as recommended by joint task forces that are composed of clinical HF experts.1, 2

In the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study, autonomic regulation therapy (ART) was administered using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as an adjunct to GDMT as background treatment for patients with HFrEF. To deliver ART, VNS was administered via the left or right cervical vagus nerve utilizing an implantable pulse generator, a self‐sizing and atraumatic lead, and an external programming system for changing the generator settings for stimulation. The VNS system was successfully implanted in all patients, and no intraoperative mapping was required for appropriate positioning of the lead cuff on the vagus nerve or for VNS. The pulse generator was programmed subsequently to transmit electrical signals via the lead to the vagus nerve.3, 4 VNS polarity and software were configured for afferent stimulation towards the central nervous system as well as efferent stimulation towards the peripheral hierarchical autonomic reflex arcs that control cardiovascular function.5 ART was satisfactorily titrated in 59 patients using incremental and well‐tolerated intensification of VNS and objective confirmation of autonomic nervous system engagement.6, 7 ART was associated with significant improvements in heart rate variability, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6 min walk distance, and quality of life.8

In order to compare the background pharmacological therapy that patients received in ANTHEM‐HF with other contemporary studies of patients with HFrEF, a post hoc analysis was performed using published data from the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study and two other trials of novel HF therapies: the PARADIGM‐HF study of sacubitril–valsartan9 and the SHIFT study of ivadrabine.10 All three studies evaluated patients with HFrEF, and the existing published guidelines for GDMT were similar. An LVEF ≤40% was required for entry into ANTHEM‐HF and PARADIGM‐HF and ≤35% for SHIFT. NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms were required for entry into ANTHEM‐HF, and patients with predominantly NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms entered PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT. ANTHEM‐HF excluded patients with atrial fibrillation, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or pacemaker therapy. None of the ANTHEM‐HF patients had an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) at enrolment. In PARADIGM‐HF, approximately 36% of patients had a history of atrial fibrillation; 7% were CRT recipients, and 15% were ICD recipients at the time of randomization. SHIFT excluded patients with atrial fibrillation. One per cent were CRT recipients, and 3% were ICD recipients at the time of randomization.

The existing recommendations for GDMT were similar for all three studies. Unless treatment was contraindicated or intolerable, patients were to receive beta‐blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE‐I) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) as background pharmacological treatment per GDMT.

2. Methods

The study designs11, 12, 13 and outcomes8, 9, 10 of the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study, PARADIGM‐HF, and SHIFT have been previously published. The ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study conformed with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.14 The protocol for the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study was approved by local ethics committees at all of the study sites, and all patients gave written informed consent translated into local languages.

Demographic data were obtained from the peer‐reviewed publications of these three completed studies and were used for this post hoc analysis. Differences in proportions were evaluated using Pearson's χ 2 test, and differences in mean values were evaluated using Student's unpaired t‐test.15, 16 Comparison of continuous variables was conducted using the t‐test with Satterthwaite correction for unequal variances and t‐distributed 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For discrete variables, CIs for the risk differences between studies used the Wald asymptotic 95% CIs. Inferential statistics were computed using SAS version 9.4. Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Due to the small sample size in the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study, no analysis was performed for non‐inferiority.

3. Results

Table 1 compares the demographics and medications that were used in the three studies. As compared with PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT, ANTHEM‐HF patients were younger (52 ± 12 vs. 64 ± 11 and 60 ± 11 years, P < 0.0001, respectively), and there were more male patients than in SHIFT (87% vs. 76%, P < 0.05). Ischaemic HF was more common than in PARADIGM‐HF (75% vs. 60%, P < 0.0001) and tended to be more common than in SHIFT [75% vs. 67%, 0.19, 95% CI (−4, 17)].

Table 1.

Comparison of GDMT administered in the ANTHEM‐HF, PARADIGM‐HF, and SHIFT

ANTHEM‐HF
N = 60		 PARADIGM‐HF
N = 8442		 Differencea (95% CI) P SHIFT
N = 6398		 Differenceb (95% CI) P
Age (years) 52 ± 12 64 ± 11 −12 (−15, −9) <0.0001 60 ± 11 −8 (−11, −5) <0.0001
Male gender (%) 87 78 9 (−2, 15) <0.0932 76 11 (0.2, 17) <0.05
Ischaemic HF (% patients) 75 60 15 (3, 24) <0.02 67 8 (−4, 17) 0.19
NYHA ≥3 (% patients) 43 25 18c (6, 31) <0.002 0/49/49/2 −8c (−7, 20) 0.2
Body mass index (kg/m2) 24 ± 4 28 ± 5 −4 (−5, −3) <0.0001 28 ± 5 −4 (−5, −3) <0.0001
Systolic BP (mmHg) 113 ± 15 122 ± 15 −9 (−13, −5) <0.0001 122 ± 16 −9 (−13, −5) <0.0001
Resting heart rate (b.p.m.) 78 ± 10 72 ± 12 6 (3, 9) <0.0001 80 ± 10 −2 (−4.5, 0.5) 0.12
LVEF (%) 32 ± 7 30 ± 6 2 (0.5, 3.5) 0.01 29 ± 5 3 (2, 4) <0.001
Minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization (months) 3 1 — — 1 — —
ACE‐I or ARB (% patients) 85 100 −15 (−26, −8) <0.0001 91 −6 (−17, 1) 0.107
Beta‐blocker (% patients) 100 93 7 (1, 7.5) <0.04 89 11 (5, 12) <0.007
Beta‐blocker dose ≥100% of target (% patients) 10 7 3 (−2, 13) 0.36 23 −13 (−21, −5) 0.02
100% > beta‐blocker dose ≥50% of target (% patients) 17 20 −3 (−10, 8) 0.56 26 −9 (−19, 0.2) 0.10
Loop diuretic (% patients) 88 80 8 (−3, 14) 0.12 83 5 (−6, 11) 0.3
MRA (% patients) 75 55 20 (8, 29) <0.002 61 14 (2, 23) 0.03
Open in a new tab

ACE‐I, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; BP, blood pressure; CI, confidence interval; GDMT, guideline‐directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MRA, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; NYHA, New York Heart Association.

a

ANTHEM‐HF vs. PARADIGM‐HF.

b

ANTHEM‐HF vs. SHIFT.

c

Compares NYHA ≥3 vs. <3.

Body mass index was lower in ANTHEM‐HF compared with PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT (24 ± 4 vs. 28 ± 5 and 28 ± 5 kg/m2, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001), and systolic blood pressure was lower (113 ± 15 vs. 122 ± 15 and 122 ± 16 mmHg, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001). Resting heart rate in ANTHEM‐HF was higher than in PARADIGM‐HF (78 ± 10 vs. 72 ± 12 b.p.m., P < 0.0001) and tended to be lower than in SHIFT [78 ± 10 vs. 80 ± 10 b.p.m., P = 0.12, 95% CI (−4.5, 0.5)]. The mean LVEF was 2% and 3% higher in ANTHEM‐HF than in PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT, respectively (32 ± 7 vs. 30 ± 6 and 29 ± 5%, P < 0.01 and P < 0.0001).

There were significant differences in the background pharmacologic treatment that patients received before randomization. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer in the ANTHEM‐HF: 3 months vs. 1 month in PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT, respectively. More patients in ANTHEM‐HF received beta‐blockers than in PARADIGM‐HF and SHIFT (100% vs. 93% and 89%, P < 0.04 and P < 0.007), and more patients in PARADIGM received a beta‐blocker than in SHIFT [93% vs. 89%, P < 0.0001, 95% CI (3, 5)]. When beta‐blocker doses in ANTHEM‐HF and SHIFT were compared using international guidelines for reference doses, significantly fewer patients in ANTHEM‐HF received doses ≥100% of target [10% vs. 23%, P < 0.02, 95% CI (−18, −3)], and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target [17% vs. 26%, P = 0.11, 95% CI (−17, 2)]. When ANTHEM‐HF and PARADIGM‐HF17 were compared, more patients in ANTHEM‐HF tended to receive doses ≥100% of target [10% vs. 7%, P = 0.36, 95% CI (−2, 13)], and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target [17% vs. 20%, P = 0.56, 95% CI (−3, 8)].

More patients received an MRA in ANTHEM‐HF than in PARADIGM‐HF or SHIFT, respectively (75% vs. 55% and 61%, P < 0.002 and P < 0.03), and more patients received an MRA in SHIFT than in PARADIGM‐HF [61% vs. 55%, P < P = 0.001, 95% CI (4.4, 7.6)].

More patients received an ACE‐I or ARB in PARADIGM‐HF than in ANTHEM‐HF and SHIFT [100% vs. 85%, P < 0.0001, and 100% vs. 91%, P < 0.001, 95% CI (8, 10)]. ACE or ARB administration was required for at least 4 weeks before the start of screening in the PARADIGM‐HF study. More patients tended to receive an ACE‐I or ARB in SHIFT than in ANTHEM‐HF [91% vs. 85%, p = 0.107, 95% CI (−1, 17)].

No other dosing data were available from PARADIGM‐HF or SHIFT for comparisons of total daily dosing of ACE‐I/ARB or MRAs.

4. Discussion

The ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study evaluated the chronic administration of open‐loop ART, using either left or right VNS, in patients in NYHA class 2 or 3 and HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%) after optimization and stabilization of pharmacological therapy for HF according to international treatment guidelines.18 With the exception of loop diuretics, no changes occurred in the background pharmacologic treatment that patients received after randomization. ART remained stable after up‐titration. No adjustment, interruption, or discontinuation of ART occurred over the subsequent course of the ANTHEM‐HF.

Evaluation of 6 months after the completion of ART titration demonstrated a significant increase in heart rate variability, consistent with an increase in parasympathetic activity and attenuation of sympathetic activity.19, 20, 21 This was associated with significant improvements in left ventricular (LV) function, NYHA class, 6 min walk distance, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, respectively.

This post hoc analysis demonstrates that the background pharmacological treatment received by ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study patients compares favourably to the background pharmacological treatment received by patients in two other contemporary studies that tested novel HF therapies for HFrEF. ART was complementary to GDMT and remained stable once up‐titrated—no adjustment, interruption, or discontinuation of ART occurred over the course of the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study. These findings serve to further support the potential role of ART as an adjunct to GDMT for patients with HFrEF.

The ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study was an uncontrolled study; thus, the overall effects seen may not have been solely attributable to ART alone. It is possible that at least some of the clinical improvements were due to a Hawthorne effect, especially in the more subjective assessments. Nevertheless, the overall directional change that has occurred in patient symptoms and function after 6 and 12 months of ART remains encouraging.8, 22

Whereas some of the early clinical studies of VNS in patients with HFrEF have been neutral,23 such as INOVATE‐HF24 and NECTAR‐HF,25 these and the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study have contributed to the knowledge base of ART in patients with HF. There is now a much better understanding of cardiac, central, and peripheral neural network interactions, hierarchical reflex controls, the VNS parameters that govern ART dose delivery, and how to select patients who may potentially benefit from ART.6, 22, 26 A methodology has also been developed for identifying when satisfactory levels of autonomic nervous system engagement and modulation occur in response to ART for the amelioration of HF.7 The combination of these insights and the findings from this post hoc analysis serve to further increase our understanding of neurocardiology and ability to deliver ART that will potentially be well tolerated and complement GDMT for the improvement of symptoms and function of patients with chronic HF. This continued progress has provided the basis for conducting the ANTHEM‐HFrEF Pivotal Study, which is currently underway.27

5. Conclusions

In the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study, the addition of ART to GDMT significantly improved symptoms and function in patients with HFrEF. The background treatment administered compared favourably with that in the two most contemporary trials of new HF therapies. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer, and GDMT remained unchanged for the study's duration in ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study. These findings serve to further support the potential role of ART as an adjunct to GDMT for patients with HFrEF.

Conflict of interest

R.P., K.S., S.M., and R.M. were compensated by Cyberonics Incorporated for their work as clinical investigators in the ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study. J.L.A. is a researcher in neurocardiology, D.D.G. is a statistician, and I.A. is a clinician, who are contracted as consultants to LivaNova USA Incorporated. L.D.C., B.H.K., and B.A. are employees and shareholders of LivaNova USA Incorporated.

Funding

The ANTHEM‐HF Pilot Study was funded by Cyberonics Incorporated, Houston, TX, USA.

Acknowledgements

None.

Premchand, R. K. , Sharma, K. , Mittal, S. , Monteiro, R. , Libbus, I. , Ardell, J. L. , Gregory, D. D. , KenKnight, B. H. , Amurthur, B. , DiCarlo, L. A. , and Anand, I. S. (2019) Background pharmacological therapy in the ANTHEM‐HF: comparison to contemporary trials of novel heart failure therapies. ESC Heart Failure, 6, 1052–1056. 10.1002/ehf2.12484.

References

  • 1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey de Jr, Colvin MM, Drazner MH, Filippatos GS, Fonarow GC, Givertz MM, Hollenberg SM, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, McBride P, Peterson PN, Stevenson LW, Westlake C. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation 2017; 136: e137–e161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JG, Coats AJ, Falk V, González‐Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, Jessup M. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2129–2200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. LivaNova PLC . VNS Therapy® System Epilepsy Physician's Manual (US Version). November 2018.
  • 4. LivaNova PLC . VITARIA® System Physician's Manual (Non‐US Version). January 2018.
  • 5. Ardell JL, Rajendran PS, Nier HA, KenKnight BH, Armour JA. Central‐peripheral neural network interactions evoked by vagus nerve stimulation: functional consequences on control of cardiac function. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2015; 309: H1740–H1752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Ardell JL, Nier H, Hammer M, Southerland EM, Ardell CL, Beaumont E, KenKnight BH, Armour JA. Defining the neural fulcrum for vagus nerve stimulation: implications for cardiac control. J Physiol 2017; 595: 6887–6903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Libbus I, Nearing BD, Amurthur B, KenKnight BH, Verrier RL. Acute autonomic engagement assessed by heart rate dynamics during vagus nerve stimulation in patients with heart failure in the ANTHEM‐HF trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016; 27: 1072–1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Premchand RK, Sharma K, Mittal S, Monteiro R, Dixit S, Libbus I, DiCarlo LA, Ardell JL, Rector TS, Amurthur B, KenKnight BH, Anand IS. Autonomic regulation therapy via left or right cervical vagus nerve stimulation in patients with chronic heart failure: results of the ANTHEM‐HF trial. J Card Fail 2014; 20: 808–816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. McMurray JVJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR, PARADIGM‐HF Investigators and Committees , for the PARADIGM‐HF‐HF Investigators and Committees . Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 993–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Böhm M, Borer J, Robertson M, Tavazzi L, Ford I, for the SHIFT Investigators . Effects on outcomes of heart rate reduction by ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure: is there an influence of beta‐blocker dose?: findings from the SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 1938–1945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. DiCarlo L, Libbus I, Amurthur B, KenKnight BH, Anand IS. Autonomic regulation therapy for the improvement of left ventricular function and heart failure symptoms: the ANTHEM‐HF study. J Card Fail 2013; 19: 655–660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. McMurray JVJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau J, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR, for the PARADIGM‐HF Investigators and Committees . Dual angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibition as an alternative to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: rationale for and design of the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM‐HF). Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15: 1062–1073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, Borer JS, Ford I, Tavazzi L. Rationale and design of a randomized, double‐blind, placebo controlled outcome trial of ivabradine in chronic heart failure: the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the I(f) inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT). Eur J Heart Fail 2010; 12: 75–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Human Experimentation: Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association . Declaration of Helsinki. Br Med J 1964; 2: 177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Ugoni A, Walker BF. The chi square test: an introduction. COMSIG Rev 1995; 4: 61–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, Fourth ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research . Application Number 207620Orig1s000 (Medical Review). Table 91. Link accessed 03 May 2019: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/207620Orig1s000MedR.pdf
  • 18. Authors/Task Force Members , McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Böhm M, Dickstein K, Falk V, Filippatos G, Fonseca C, Gomez‐Sanchez MA. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 1787–1847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Zhang Y, Popovic CB, Bibevski S, Fakhry I, Sica DA, Van Wagoner DR, Mazgalev TN. Chronic vagus nerve stimulation improves autonomic control and attenuates systemic inflammation and heart failure progression in a canine high‐rate pacing model. Circ Heart Fail 2009; 2: 692–699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Tsutsumi T, Ide T, Yamato M, Kudou W, Andou M, Hirooka Y, Utsumi H, Tsutsui H, Sunagawa K. Modulation of the myocardial redox state by vagal nerve stimulation after experimental myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Res 2008; 77: 713–721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Azevedo ER, Parker JD. Parasympathetic control of cardiac sympathetic activity: normal ventricular function versus congestive heart failure. Circulation 1999; 100: 274–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Premchand RK, Sharma K, Mittal S, Monteiro R, Dixit S, Libbus I, DiCarlo LA, Ardell JL, Rector TS, Amurthur B, KenKnight BH, Anand IS. Extended follow‐up of patients with heart failure receiving autonomic regulation therapy in the ANTHEM‐HF study. J Card Fail 2016; 22: 639–642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Byku M, Mann D. Neuromodulation of the failing heart: lost in translation? JACC Basic Transl Sci 2016; 1: 95–106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Gold MR, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Hauptman PJ, Borggrefe M, Kubo SH, Lieberman RA, Milasinovic G, Berman BJ, Djordjevic S, Neelagaru S, Schwartz PJ. Vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of heart failure: the INOVATE‐HF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 149–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Zanad F, De Ferrari GM, Tuienenburg AE, Wright D, Brugada J, Butter C, Klein H, Stolen C, Meyer S, Stein KM, Ramuzat A. Chronic vagal stimulation for the treatment of low ejection fraction heart failure: results of the neural cardiac therapy for heart failure (NECTAR‐HF) randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 425–433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Zhang DY, Anderson AS. The sympathetic nervous system and heart failure. Cardiol Clin 2014; 32: 33–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. ANTHEM‐HFrEF Pivotal Study (NCT03425422): clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03425422

Articles from ESC Heart Failure are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES