Evidence Hub

Randomized investigation of heart failure therapy in patients with advanced cancer at risk of cardiac wasting: Rationale and design of the EMPATICC trial

Anker MS, Mahabadi AA, Totzeck M, Tewes M, Mincu R, Khan MS, Butler J, Keller U et al.

European journal of heart failure, 2025

93 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Aims: End-stage cancer may resemble a heart failure (HF)-like phenotype marked by cardiac wasting, dysfunction, and symptoms such as dyspnoea, congestion, and impaired physical function. The EMPATICC (EMPower the heArt of patients with TermInal Cancer using Cardiac medicines) trial evaluates the safety and efficacy of optimized HF therapy in patients with advanced cancer to improve self-care ability.

Methods: EMPATICC is a multicentre, investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept trial employing a joint cardio-oncology care approach. Patients were randomized 1:1 to optimized HF therapy (sacubitril/valsartan, empagliflozin, ivabradine, ferric carboxymaltose) plus usual care, or usual care alone, for 30 days, followed by a 30-day open-label extension. Eligible patients had stage IV solid tumours (per Union for International Cancer Control), were receiving palliative care, had a 1-6 month life expectancy, and were on optimized analgesia. At baseline, first patients had to meet ≥2 criteria of the following indicating cardiovascular risk: heart rate ≥70 bpm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥600 pg/ml, elevated high-sensitivity troponin, left ventricular ejection fraction 15%, transferrin saturation <20%, or moderate/high likelihood of HF with preserved ejection fraction (based on the HFA-PEFF score); and they had to meet at least one criterion of the following indicating functional limitation: ≥6 s to walk 4 m, inability to wash ≥3 days…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 93 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free