Search

Outcomes in patients with smaller body size after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (HM3) implantation are not well characterized. We sought to evaluate outcomes in smaller vs larger body surface area (BSA) patients in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial and its Continued Access Protocol cohort. The analysis cohort included 1015 HM3 patients divided into 2 groups: BSA ≤1.70 m2 (small patients, n = 82) and BSA >1.70 m2 (large patients, n = 933). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or to remove a malfunctioning device. Adverse events were compared between groups. Smaller patients were more frequently women (56.1% vs 17.7%; P <.001) and had lower prevalence of diabetes (28.1% vs 43.9%; P =.005) and hypertension (51.2% vs 71.9%; P <.001), larger median indexed LVEDD (normalized by BSA, 40 vs 33 mm/m2; P <.001), and lower median serum creatinine concentration (1.1 vs 1.3 mg/dL; P <.001). The proportion of patients achieving the composite end point at 2 years was 77% in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.68-1.91; P =.62). Two-year adverse event rates were also similar between groups except for sepsis (6.1% vs 14.9%; P =.029) and cardiac arrhythmias (24.4% vs 35.3%; P =.005), which were higher in the larger patients. Outcomes after HM3 implantation were comparable between small and large patients. Smaller body size should not be used to deny HM3 implantation in patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for durable mechanical circulatory support. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Although durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has emerged as an important treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to pharmacological support, outcomes, including survival, beyond 2 years remain poorly characterized.Objective: To report the composite end point of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke (Modified Rankin Scale score >3) or reoperation to replace the pump 5 years after the implant in participants who received the fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 or axial-flow HeartMate II LVAD in the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial and were still receiving LVAD therapy at the 2-year follow-up.Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study was a 5-year follow-up of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, conducted in 69 US centers, that demonstrated superiority of the centrifugal-flow LVAD to the axial-flow pump with respect to survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump at 2 years. A total of 295 patients were enrolled between June 2019 to April 2021 in the extended-phase study, with 5-year follow-up completed in September 2021.Exposures: Of 1020 patients in the investigational device exemption per-protocol population, 536 were still receiving LVAD support at 2 years, of whom 289 received the centrifugal-flow pump and 247 received the axial-flow pump.Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 10 end points evaluated at 5 years in the per-protocol population, including a composite of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump between the centrifugal-flow and axial-flow pump groups and overall survival between the 2 groups.Results: A total of 477 patients (295 enrolled and 182 provided limited data) of 536 patients still receiving LVAD support at 2 years contributed to the extended-phase analysis (median age, 62 y; 86 [18%] women). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump in the centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow group was 54.0% vs 29.7% (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P < .001). Overall Kaplan-Meier survival was 58.4% in the centrifugal-flow group vs 43.7% in the axial-flow group (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.89]; P = .003). Serious adverse events of stroke, bleeding, and pump thrombosis were less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group.Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational follow-up study of patients from the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial, per-protocol analyses found that receipt of a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow LVAD vs axial-flow LVAD was associated with a better composite outcome and higher likelihood of overall survival at 5 years. These findings support the use of the fully magnetically levitated LVAD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02224755 and NCT03982979. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial established superiority of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump, over the HeartMate II axial-flow pump. We now evaluate HM3 LVAD outcomes in a single-arm prospective continuous access protocol (CAP) post-pivotal trial study.Methods and Results: We enrolled 2200 HM3 implanted patients (515 pivotal trial and 1685 CAP patients) and compared outcomes including survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device (primary composite endpoint), overall survival and major adverse events at 2 years. The 2-year primary endpoint [76.7% vs. 74.8%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.08, P = 0.21] and overall survival (81.2% vs. 79.0%) were similar among CAP and pivotal cohorts despite sicker patients (more intra-aortic balloon pump use and INTERMACS profile 1) in CAP who were more often intended for destination therapy. Survival was similar between the CAP and pivotal trial in transplant ineligible patients (79.1% vs. 76.7%; adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16, P = 0.38). In a pooled analysis, the 2-year primary endpoint was similar between INTERMACS profiles 1-2 ('unstable' advanced heart failure), profile 3 ('stable' on inotropic therapy), and profiles 4-7 ('stable' ambulatory advanced heart failure) (75.7% vs. 77.6% vs. 72.9%, respectively). The net burden of adverse events was lower in CAP (adjusted rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98, P = 0.006), with consequent decrease in hospitalization.Conclusions: The primary results of accumulating HM3 LVAD experience suggest a lower adverse event burden and similar survival compared to the pivotal MOMENTUM 3 trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the limited number of available suitable donor hearts resulting in plateaued numbers of heart transplantations, short‐ and long‐term mechanical circulatory support devices, including the implantation of total artificial hearts (TAHs) are modalities that are increasingly being used as treatment options for patients with end‐stage heart failure. The superior vena cava syndrome has been described in this context in various disease processes. We report successful venoplasty for superior vena cava syndrome in a patient with a TAH. Case Presentation: A 65‐year‐old man with a history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy had received a left ventricular assist device, and then 2 years later, underwent orthotopic heart transplantation using the bicaval anastomosis technique. The postprocedural course was complicated by primary graft failure, resulting in the need for implantation of a TAH. About 5 months after TAH implantation, he started to develop complications such as volume retention, swelling of the upper extremities, and was diagnosed to have a superior vena cava syndrome. The patient underwent a successful venoplasty of his superior vena cava by interventional radiology with resolution of upper body edema, normalization of renal, and liver function. Conclusion: Potential fatal complications caused by catheter or wire entrapment in the right‐sided mechanical valve of a TAH have been reported. We describe a safe method for the treatment of superior vena cava syndrome in patients with TAH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 71-year-old woman was admitted with acute hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock, secondary to acute on chronic biventricular systolic and diastolic congestive heart failure and severe aortic and mitral valve stenosis. She further presented with pulmonary hypertension and moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation requiring high and increasing doses of vasopressors. The patient was percutaneously cannulated for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and stabilized on ECMO, with a urine output of 17.3 L within the following 8 days. Balloon valvuloplasty and/or transcatheter aortic valve replacement were discussed but ruled out by the multidisciplinary team considering the mitral valve could not be fully addressed. Though lung function was not fully optimized, a window of opportunity was identified and used for double valve replacement on day 8 of VA-ECMO support. After a 24-hour vasoplegic period, the patient was extubated to continuous positive airway pressure and further transitioned to nasal cannula, following which she recovered well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with noninotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) are limited.Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD support versus optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous inotropic support.Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter (N = 41), observational study of 200 patients (97 LVAD, 103 OMM). Entry criteria included ≥1 hospitalization for HF in the last 12 months and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m. The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6MWD ≥75 m at 12 months.Results: LVAD patients were more severely ill, with more patients classified as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 4 (65% LVAD vs. 34% OMM; p < 0.001) than 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint (39% LVAD vs. 21% OMM; odds ratio: 2.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.8]; p = 0.012). On the basis of as-treated analysis, 12-month survival was greater for LVAD versus OMM (80 ± 4% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.022) patients. Adverse events were higher in LVAD patients, at 1.89 events/patient-year (EPPY), primarily driven by bleeding (1.22 EPPY), than with OMM, at 0.83 EPPY, primarily driven by worsening HF (0.68 EPPY). Most patients (80% LVAD vs. 62% OMM; p < 0.001) required hospitalizations. Health-related quality of life (HRQol) and depression improved from baseline more significantly with LVADs than with OMM (Δ visual analog scale: 29 ± 25 vs. 10 ± 22 [p < 0.001]; Δ Patient Health Questionnaire-9: -5 ± 7 vs. -1 ± 5 [p < 0.001]).Conclusions: Survival with improved functional status was better with HMII LVAD compared with OMM. Despite experiencing more frequent adverse events, LVAD patients improved more in HRQol and depression. The results support HMII use in functionally limited, noninotrope-dependent HF patients with poor HRQoL. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device [LVAD] and Medical Management [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several distinctly engineered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are in clinical use. However, contemporaneous real world comparisons have not been conducted, and clinical trials were not powered to evaluate differential survival outcomes across devices. Determine real world survival outcomes and healthcare expenditures for commercially available durable LVADs. Using a retrospective observational cohort design, Medicare claims files were linked to manufacturer device registration data to identify de-novo, durable LVAD implants performed between January 2014 and December 2018, with follow-up through December 2019. Survival outcomes were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LVAD type and validated using propensity score matching. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed across device types by using nonparametric bootstrap analysis methodology. Primary outcome was survival at 1-year and total Part A Medicare payments. A total of 4,195 de-novo LVAD implants were identified in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (821 HeartMate 3; 1,840 HeartMate II; and 1,534 Other-VADs). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality at 1-year (confirmed in a propensity score matched analysis) for the HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was 0.64 (95% CI; 0.52–0.79, p < 0.001) and for the HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was 0.51 (95% CI; 0.42–0.63, p < 0.001). The HeartMate 3 cohort experienced fewer hospitalizations per patient-year vs Other-VADs (respectively, 2.8 vs 3.2 EPPY hospitalizations, p < 0.01) and 6.1 fewer hospital days on average (respectively, 25.2 vs 31.3 days, p < 0.01). The difference in Medicare expenditures, conditional on survival, for HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was -$10,722, p < 0.001 (17.4% reduction) and for HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was -$17,947, p < 0.001 (26.1% reduction). In this analysis of a large, real world, United States. administrative dataset of durable LVADs, we observed that the HeartMate 3 had superior survival, reduced healthcare resource use, and lower healthcare expenditure compared to other contemporary commercially available LVADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A post-approval (PA) study for destination therapy (DT) was required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether results with the HeartMate (HM) II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a commercial setting were comparable to results during the DT multicenter pivotal clinical trial. Background: New device technology developed in the clinical research setting requires validation in a real-world setting. Methods: The PA study was a prospective evaluation of the first 247 HM II patients identified pre-operatively as eligible for DT in the national INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry. Patients were enrolled from January to September 2010 at 61 U.S. centers and followed for 2 years. A historical comparison group included patients (n = 133 at 34 centers) enrolled in the primary data cohort in the DT pivotal trial (TR). Survival rates and adverse events for the PA group were obtained from the INTERMACS registry. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar for PA versus TR. Forty-five percent of PA patients were in INTERMACS profiles 1 to 2 and 28% were in profile 3. Adverse events in the PA group were similar or lower than those in the TR group, including improvements in device-related infection (0.22 vs. 0.47) and post-operative bleeding requiring surgery (0.09 vs. 0.23) events per patient-year. Kaplan-Meier survival at 2 years was 62% (PA group) versus 58% (TR group). PA group survival at 1 and 2 years was 82 ± 5% and 69 ± 6% for INTERMACS profiles 4 to 7 (n = 63) versus 72 ± 3% and 60 ± 4% for profiles 1 to 3 (n = 184). The median length of stay after surgery was reduced by 6 days in the PA group versus the TR group. Conclusions: Results in a commercial patient care setting for the DT population supported the original pivotal clinical trial findings regarding the efficacy and risk profile of the HM II LVAD. Survival was best in patients who were not inotrope-dependent (INTERMACS profiles 4 to 7). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pump thrombosis is a dreaded complication of long-term implantable ventricular assist devices. No guidance exists regarding the diagnosis and management of this entity despite its significant morbidity. After considerable thought and deliberation, a group of leading investigators in the field of mechanical support propose an algorithm for the diagnosis and management of this vexing entity based on clinical symptoms and serologic and imaging studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]