Proposed section structure
This topic is best organized around the clinical problem of autonomic dysregulation in heart failure, the rationale for vagal nerve stimulation, the pivotal ANTHEM-HFrEF trial design, the efficacy and safety findings, the methodological consequences of premature trial termination, and the implications for future device-based heart failure research.
The article therefore uses the following structure: Highlights; Clinical background and unmet need; Biological rationale for vagal nerve stimulation; Study design and conduct; Key results; Interpretation and clinical relevance; Trial discontinuation and research integrity lessons; Conclusion; Funding and trial registration; References.
Highlights
ANTHEM-HFrEF tested implantable vagal nerve stimulation, added to guideline-directed therapy, in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, and elevated natriuretic peptides.
The primary efficacy endpoint, time to cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, was not met after enrollment stopped early at 532 randomized patients, with a hazard ratio of 0.84 and 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.12.
The primary safety endpoint was achieved, with 96.7% freedom from procedure- or device-related serious adverse events, supporting procedural feasibility and acceptable device safety.
Signals favoring heart failure hospitalization, symptoms, functional status, and quality of life were observed but are hypothesis-generating only because the trial was underpowered, the primary endpoint was neutral, and exploratory analyses were susceptible to multiplicity and potential bias.
Clinical background and unmet need
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains a major source of mortality, hospitalization, functional limitation, and healthcare expenditure despite major therapeutic progress. Contemporary foundational therapy, including renin-angiotensin system inhibition or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, has substantially improved outcomes. Yet a considerable residual burden remains, especially among patients with persistent symptoms, recurrent decompensation, and evidence of neurohormonal activation.
One longstanding pathophysiologic target is autonomic imbalance. Patients with HFrEF typically demonstrate heightened sympathetic activity and impaired parasympathetic, or vagal, tone. This imbalance is associated with tachycardia, arrhythmogenesis, progressive ventricular remodeling, renal sodium retention, and adverse outcomes. Device-based autonomic modulation has therefore been explored as a way to complement pharmacologic neurohormonal blockade.
Vagal nerve stimulation has been particularly attractive because it aims not simply to suppress sympathetic output indirectly, but to restore a more favorable sympathovagal balance. Earlier mechanistic and pilot studies suggested potential improvements in heart rate dynamics, quality of life, functional class, and ventricular performance, but clinical development has been challenging. Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient selection, tolerability, and endpoint choice has complicated interpretation of the field.
Biological rationale for vagal nerve stimulation
The vagus nerve exerts broad cardiovascular effects through chronotropic modulation, antiadrenergic actions, anti-inflammatory signaling, and potential influences on myocardial electrophysiology and remodeling. In experimental heart failure models, vagal stimulation has been associated with improved baroreflex sensitivity, reduced arrhythmia susceptibility, attenuation of maladaptive remodeling, and better survival.
In clinical heart failure, however, translating these biologic effects into hard clinical benefits has been difficult. Effective vagal engagement requires sufficient stimulation intensity and physiologic response without causing intolerable cough, voice changes, pain, or dysphagia. Moreover, the relationship between autonomic biomarkers and outcomes remains incompletely standardized. ANTHEM-HFrEF is important because it represents a pivotal attempt to test whether chronic implantable vagal nerve stimulation can improve outcomes in a contemporary HFrEF population.
Study design and conduct
ANTHEM-HFrEF was a randomized pivotal trial comparing vagal nerve stimulation plus usual care with a control strategy. Randomization was performed in a 2:1 ratio favoring active therapy. Eligible patients had New York Heart Association functional class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration of at least 800 pg/mL, indicating a population with persistent symptomatic and biomarker-confirmed disease burden.
The primary efficacy endpoint was time to cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. This is a clinically relevant composite reflecting both mortality and decompensated disease requiring inpatient care. Secondary endpoints included left ventricular ejection fraction, 6-minute walk distance, and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, a validated patient-reported measure of heart failure symptoms, function, and quality of life. The trial used adaptive sample sizing with a target of up to 1,000 patients. The reported P values were one-sided, which is unconventional in many contemporary cardiovascular outcome trials and should be considered when assessing statistical strength.
A critical feature of this study is that the sponsor terminated enrollment after 532 patients had been randomized. The paper states that this decision was unrelated to futility or efficacy. Nonetheless, such a stoppage materially reduced statistical power and created interpretive challenges. Because event-driven heart failure trials depend heavily on adequate sample size and follow-up duration, an externally imposed interruption can convert a potentially informative efficacy trial into one that is primarily valuable for safety, feasibility, and signal detection rather than definitive therapeutic guidance.
Key results
Primary efficacy endpoint
The primary endpoint was not met. For the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, the hazard ratio was 0.84 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.62 to 1.12 and a one-sided P value of 0.115. Numerically, the point estimate favored vagal nerve stimulation, but the confidence interval crossed unity and the result was not statistically significant. Clinically, this means the trial cannot establish that VNS reduced major adverse heart failure outcomes.
The neutral result requires careful framing. A hazard ratio of 0.84 is not trivial in magnitude if true, but the range of plausible effects includes both clinically meaningful benefit and no benefit. Because of early enrollment termination, the study was underpowered relative to its intended design. Underpowering does not make a neutral trial positive, but it does widen uncertainty and limits the precision with which treatment effects can be estimated.
Secondary and supportive efficacy findings
The investigators report favorable but inconclusive findings for several clinically important domains, including heart failure hospitalization, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, New York Heart Association functional class, and 6-minute walk distance. These signals suggest the possibility that vagal stimulation may influence symptoms and functional status even if a hard composite outcome benefit could not be proven in this truncated study.
However, left ventricular ejection fraction was unchanged. This is noteworthy because improvement in ejection fraction had been part of the mechanistic hope surrounding autonomic modulation. The lack of measurable change in LVEF argues against a robust reverse-remodeling effect under the conditions tested, at least within the follow-up available. It also cautions against assuming that symptomatic improvement, if present, necessarily reflects improved systolic function.
The paper also describes persistent long-term autonomic engagement. Although the abstract does not provide all technical details, this finding is important because it supports proof of biological activity. In device trials, a distinction must be made between treatment delivery and therapeutic efficacy. ANTHEM-HFrEF appears to have shown that chronic VNS could be delivered and could engage autonomic pathways over time, but proof of clinical event reduction remains lacking.
Safety
The primary safety endpoint was achieved, with 96.7% freedom from procedure- or device-related serious adverse events. For an implantable neuromodulation strategy in a medically vulnerable population, this is an important result. Safety is especially relevant because a therapy that fails to show clear efficacy must at least demonstrate a reasonable procedural and device risk profile if it is to remain of interest for future refinement.
That said, safety should not be reduced to the serious adverse event metric alone. Practical tolerability, programming burden, patient adherence, and effects on voice, cough, swallowing, and comfort remain relevant in everyday use. Even when major complications are uncommon, minor but persistent stimulation-related symptoms can affect real-world uptake. The abstract does not fully detail these tolerability dimensions, so clinicians should interpret safety as reassuring but not exhaustive.
Exploratory analyses
A particularly interesting aspect of the report is the investigators’ handling of trial discontinuation while maintaining blinding and scientific integrity. They had prespecified a single exploratory outcomes-symptoms win ratio intended to extend data reporting in a way that remained methodologically transparent. The resulting analysis was favorable to VNS but was explicitly described as hypothesis-generating only.
This caution is justified. Once the primary endpoint is neutral, any positive secondary or exploratory signal must be interpreted within a hierarchical framework. Multiplicity increases the chance of false-positive findings, and subjective endpoints such as symptoms and functional class are more vulnerable to expectancy effects, especially in device trials where blinding is inherently difficult. Marginal statistical significance in that setting should prompt further study, not clinical adoption.
Interpretation and clinical relevance
From a clinician’s perspective, ANTHEM-HFrEF does not support routine use of vagal nerve stimulation for patients with HFrEF in current practice. The decisive reason is straightforward: the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. Even though the point estimate trended in a favorable direction and several symptom-related measures also favored treatment, the totality of evidence remains insufficient for guideline-level endorsement.
At the same time, the trial should not be dismissed as a failure devoid of value. First, it strengthens the procedural safety case for implantable autonomic modulation. Second, it provides evidence that long-term autonomic engagement is achievable. Third, it identifies a possible efficacy signal that may help refine future studies, perhaps through improved patient selection, stimulation titration, endpoint strategy, and integration with fully optimized modern heart failure therapy.
One question is whether there may be subgroups more likely to benefit, such as patients with marked autonomic dysfunction, sinus rhythm, higher resting heart rate, or specific biomarker profiles. Another is whether the optimal therapeutic target is not major event reduction alone, but symptom burden, exercise capacity, or recurrent hospitalization in selected populations. These remain open questions and cannot be answered definitively from this trial.
The absence of LVEF improvement also matters biologically. If VNS were producing clinically important reverse remodeling, one might expect some signal in ventricular function, though not necessarily in every patient or at every time point. The lack of such a signal may indicate that either the mechanism is more functional than structural, the stimulation regimen was suboptimal, or the therapy effect is smaller than anticipated.
Trial discontinuation and research integrity lessons
One of the most valuable contributions of this report may be methodological rather than therapeutic. The investigators explicitly address the challenge of sponsor-initiated premature termination occurring outside formal Data Monitoring Committee processes. This is an under-discussed but highly consequential issue in clinical trials.
When a trial stops early for reasons unrelated to efficacy or futility, investigators face competing obligations. They must preserve scientific rigor, avoid data dredging, maintain participant trust, respect prespecified analyses, and still extract clinically useful information from incomplete data. ANTHEM-HFrEF appears to have responded by emphasizing transparency, retaining blinding where possible, prespecifying a limited exploratory strategy, and carefully labeling favorable findings as nonconfirmatory.
That approach deserves attention from the broader clinical trials community. Premature discontinuation can distort evidence generation, waste participant contribution, and create incentives for post hoc interpretation. The principled handling of such situations requires clear governance, advance contingency planning, independent oversight, and explicit communication about what conclusions can and cannot be drawn. In this sense, the paper serves as a case study in ethical and scientific stewardship after a disrupted trial.
How ANTHEM-HFrEF fits with the broader field
Device-based neuromodulation in heart failure has had a mixed trajectory. Prior efforts involving vagal stimulation, baroreflex activation, and related strategies have often shown improvements in quality of life or functional measures without producing definitive evidence for mortality or major hospitalization benefit. This pattern raises the possibility that autonomic modulation may have real physiologic effects that are nonetheless difficult to translate into large, reproducible outcome gains across heterogeneous HFrEF populations.
It also highlights the challenge of comparing device therapies with rapidly evolving background medical therapy. As pharmacologic treatment improves, incremental benefit becomes harder to detect, sample size requirements increase, and mechanistic niches narrow. Any future VNS trial will need to be conducted against contemporary quadruple therapy and perhaps against expanding use of implantable hemodynamic monitoring or other advanced management tools.
For now, the practical implication is measured restraint. VNS remains investigational in HFrEF. The present evidence base supports continued research rather than clinical implementation.
Conclusion
ANTHEM-HFrEF showed that vagal nerve stimulation in symptomatic HFrEF is feasible, can achieve durable autonomic engagement, and has an acceptable procedural and device-related safety profile. However, the trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Favorable trends in hospitalization, symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life are intriguing but remain inconclusive and hypothesis-generating, especially given early sponsor-driven trial termination, reduced statistical power, multiplicity concerns, and susceptibility of subjective endpoints to bias.
The main clinical message is not that VNS works in HFrEF, but that it remains biologically plausible and technically deliverable while still unproven as an outcome-improving therapy. The main methodological message may be equally important: when a pivotal trial is stopped early outside conventional monitoring pathways, transparency, prespecification, and disciplined interpretation are essential to preserving the value of the evidence that remains.
Funding and trial registration
Trial: ANTHEM-HFrEF Pivotal Study, Autonomic Regulation Therapy to Enhance Myocardial Function and Reduce Progression of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03425422.
The abstract identifies sponsor-initiated enrollment termination but does not provide full funding details in the summary text presented here. Readers should consult the full Journal of the American College of Cardiology article for complete disclosures, sponsor roles, and author conflict-of-interest statements.
References
Konstam MA, Udelson JE, Mann DL, DiCarlo L, Butler J, Ardell J, De Ferrari GM, Klein HU, Filippatos G, Metra M, Anand I, Close N, Saville BR, Detry MA, Paulon G, Khandwala F, Bosse A, KenKnight B, Mindrebo S, Rice P, Trifunovic N, Popescu MI, Apostolovic S, Adler A, Parker JD, Teerlink JR, ANTHEM-HFrEF Investigators. Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: The ANTHEM-HFrEF Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2026-05-20. PMID: 42159539.
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022;79:e263-e421.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2023 Focused update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. European Heart Journal. 2023;44:3627-3639.
Zannad F, De Ferrari GM, Tuinenburg AE, et al. Chronic vagal stimulation for the treatment of low ejection fraction heart failure: results of the NECTAR-HF randomized controlled trial. European Heart Journal. 2015;36:425-433.
Premchand RK, Sharma K, Mittal S, et al. Autonomic regulation therapy via left or right cervical vagus nerve stimulation in patients with chronic heart failure: results of the ANTHEM-HF trial. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2014;20:808-816.
