Search

This study evaluated the Heartmate Risk Score (HMRS) and its potential benefits in clinical practice.The HMRS has been shown to correlate with mortality in the cohort of patients enrolled in the Heartmate II trials, but its validity in unselected, "real world" populations remains unclear.This study identified a cohort of 269 consecutive patients who received a Heartmate II left ventricular assist device at our institution, the Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, between June 2005 and June 2013. Ninety-day and 2-year mortality rates, as well as frequency of several morbid events, were compared by retrospectively assigned HMRS category groups. The analysis was repeated within the subgroup of INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) class 1 patients.Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the HMRS correlated with 90-day mortality with an area under the curve of 0.70. Stratification in low, mid, and high HMRS groups identified patients with increasing hazard of 90-day mortality, increasing long-term mortality, increasing rate of gastrointestinal bleeding events, and increasing median number of days spent in the hospital in the first year post implant. Within INTERMACS class 1 patients, those in the highest HMRS group were found to have a relative risk of 90-day mortality 5.7 times higher than those in the lowest HMRS group (39.1% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.029).HMRS is a valid clinical tool to stratify risk of morbidity and mortality after implant of Heartmate II devices in unselected patients and can be used to predict short-term mortality risk in INTERMACS class 1 patients.

Management of existing aortic insufficiency (AI) and mechanical aortic valves in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial. Surgical options to address these issues include closure, repair or replacement of the valve.Continuous-flow LVAD/biventricular VAD patients entered into the INTERMACS database between June 2006 and December 2012 were included (n = 5,344) in this analysis. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent aortic valve (AV) closure (n = 125), repair (n = 95) and replacement (n = 85).Among patients who underwent an AV procedure, actuarial survival was significantly reduced for AV closures (63.2%) compared with AV repairs (76.8%) and replacements (71.8%) (p = 0.0003). Differences were greater between groups when only INTERMACS Level 1 or 2 patients were analyzed (p = 0.003). After multivariate adjustment, AV closure remained a significant risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio = 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53, p0.0001). At 6 to 12 months post-operatively, moderate to severe AI developed in 19%, 5%, 9% and 10% of patients with available echocardiography who underwent repair, closure, replacement and no intervention, respectively (p0.0001). Competing outcomes demonstrate that, at 1-year, fewer patients with AV closures were transplanted compared with patients with repairs/replacements (14% vs 19%). No differences were observed between groups with respect to cause of death, re-hospitalization, right heart failure or stroke.AV closure was associated with increased mortality when compared with repair or replacement in patients with AI who underwent LVAD insertion. The reasons for this association require further investigation. This is the largest study to date to examine concomitant AV procedures in patients undergoing LVAD insertion.