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]

Correction of valvular disease is often undertaken during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with uncertain benefit. We analyzed clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott) LVAD implantation in those with various concurrent valve procedures (HM3+VP) with those with an isolated LVAD implant (HM3 alone). The study included 2200 patients with HM3 implanted within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial portfolio who underwent 820 concurrent procedures among which 466 (21.8%) were HM3+VP. VPs included 101 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid; 85 patients had multiple VPs. Perioperative complications, major adverse events, and survival were analyzed. Patients who underwent HM3+VP had higher-acuity Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (1-2: 41% vs 31%) compared with no VPs (P <.05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124 vs 76 minutes; P <.0001) and hospital length of stay (20 vs 18 days; P <.0001) were longer in HM3+VP. A higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs 23.8%), and right heart failure (41.5% vs 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP at 0 to 30 days (P <.01), with no difference in 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%) or 2-year survival (81.7% vs 80.8%). Analysis of individual VP showed no differences in survival compared to HM3 alone. No differences were noted among patients with either significant mitral (moderate or worse) or tricuspid (moderate or worse) regurgitation with or without corrective surgery. Concurrent VPs, commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, with no effect on short- and long-term survival. There is sufficient equipoise to consider a randomized trial on the benefit of commonly performed VPs (such as mitral or tricuspid regurgitation correction), during LVAD implantation. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Worsening heart failure (HF) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have been shown to impact the decision to proceed with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, but little is known about how socioeconomic factors influence expressed patient preference for LVAD.Methods and Results: Ambulatory patients with advanced systolic HF (n=353) reviewed written information about LVAD therapy and completed a brief survey to indicate whether they would want an LVAD to treat their current level of HF. Ordinal logistic regression analyses identified clinical and demographic predictors of LVAD preference. Higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, worse HRQOL measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, lower education level, and lower income were significant univariable predictors of patients wanting an LVAD. In the multivariable model, higher NYHA class (OR [odds ratio]: 1.43, CI [confidence interval]: 1.08-1.90, P = .013) and lower income level (OR: 2.10, CI: 1.18 - 3.76, P = .012 for <$40,000 vs >$80,000) remained significantly associated with wanting an LVAD.Conclusion: Among ambulatory patients with advanced systolic HF, treatment preference for LVAD was influenced by level of income independent of HF severity. Understanding the impact of socioeconomic factors on willingness to consider LVAD therapy may help tailor counseling towards individual needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is often associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality, and short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be a life-saving treatment. In this report, we describe our experience with the percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (Impella 5.5) to support cardiogenic shock patients as a bridge to recovery or advanced heart failure (HF) therapies. We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of 36 CS patients supported by Impella 5.5 at our institution from May 2020 to December 2021. Baseline patient characteristics, pre-implant laboratory values, duration of support, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) were evaluated. Outcomes including weaning of Impella 5.5, survival to discharge, morbidity and mortality were collected. A total of 36 patients were included in this study (Table 1). The mean age was 57 years ± 12, and 72% were male. The etiology of cardiogenic shock included non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in 12 (33%) patients, ischemic cardiomyopathy in 7 (19%), mixed in 1 (3%), acute myocardial infarction in 8 (22%), post-cardiotomy shock in 5 (14%), and myocarditis in 3 (8%). The Mean duration of support was 21 days ± 24 (median=12.5 days; 2-138), with a mean Hospital LOS of 40 days ± 30 (3-152) and mean ICU days of 33 days ± 26 (3-144). Of the 36 patients, 15 (42%) were transitioned to advanced HF therapies (LVAD=9 (25%), HTx=6 (17%)). Nine (25%) patients showed signs of myocardial recovery and were weaned, 2 patients were transferred to an outside hospital for double organ transplant, while care was withdrawn on 10 (28%) patients. Twenty-five (69%) patients survived to discharge. In 12 (33%) patients, Impella 5.5 was used as an additional tool to unload the left ventricle while on VA-ECMO. Bleeding not related to the pump (n=8, 22%) was the most common complication observed, followed by 2 (6%) cases of stroke (n=2, 6%), and one each of hemolysis (3%) and pump thrombosis (3%). Ten (28%) patients experienced pump malposition, which required adjustment under echo guidance. Our initial short-term results demonstrate that Impella 5.5 is a reliable temporary MCS with low complication profile, with excellent survival to recovery or destination therapies. Multi-center trials are still required to validate the outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies indicate that decision making and informed consent among patients considering left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support for advanced heart failure could be improved. In the VADDA (Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid) trial, we tested a patient-centered decision aid (DA) to enhance the quality of decision making about LVAD therapy.Methods: After an extensive user-centered design process, we conducted a multisite randomized trial of the DA compared with standard education (SE) among inpatients considering LVAD treatment for advanced heart failure The main outcome was LVAD knowledge at 1 week and 1 month after administration of the DA versus the SE, according to a validated scale. Secondary measures included prespecified quality decision making measures recommended by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration.Results: Of 105 eligible patients, 98 consented and were randomly assigned to the DA and SE arms. Patients receiving the VADDA exhibited significantly greater LVAD knowledge than the SE group at 1 week of follow-up (P = .01) but not at 1 month (P = .47). No differences were found between DA and SE patients in rates of acceptance versus decline of LVAD treatment (85% vs 78%; P = .74). Recipients in the DA arm reported greater satisfaction with life after implantation compared with nonrecipients (28 vs 23 out of 30; P = .008), although both arms reported high satisfaction. Patients rated the DA high in acceptability and usability.Conclusions: The VADDA enhances LVAD knowledge, particularly in the short term (1 week) during the peak period of decision making. The DA does not encourage decision direction and reflects patient, caregiver, and physician preferences for content and format.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02248974. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02248974). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addition to a large body of research that shows decision aids (DA) are associated with better patient experiences for many health decisions, a multi-site randomized controlled trial that compared a DA for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement with standard LVAD education found that the DA significantly increased patient knowledge and satisfaction with life after implant. However, little evidence exists regarding best practices for implementation of a DA in real-world cardiovascular care. This project evaluated DA implementation at eight U.S. hospitals with a focus on increasing shared decision-making (SDM) and DA use. Participating received a tailored implementation plan and SDM training. To understand the extent to which SDM enhanced behaviors were implemented, LVAD coordinators completed a 10-item Implementation Fidelity Checklist (score 0-10) for each patient. The primary outcome, reach to patients, is calculated by dividing the number of checklists received by the total number of patients receiving pre-LVAD education during evaluation. DA fidelity is calculated using LVAD coordinator self-report of the patient encounter on the Fidelity Checklist. Across sites, 607 patients received a DA from September 2018-December 2019. Reach ranged from 29.3%-87.9% of patients across sites with an overall reach of 58.2% and average Fidelity Checklist score of 8.4 (range 6.0-10.0). Over one-third (37.5%) of sites achieved overall reach > 80% indicating a high level of implementation success. Almost half of patients reviewed the DA with a caregiver (48.7%). Clinician users of the decision aid believed additional language translations of the DA and inclusion of institution-specific and personalized risk profiles would promote long-term sustainability of the DA at their institution. Findings demonstrate that DAs and SDM can be implemented into diverse cardiovascular care settings with sustained use by clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Future work will evaluate implementation of new DA features requested by clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In advanced heart failure patients implanted with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), it is unknown how preimplant factors and postimplant index hospitalization events influence 5-year mortality in those able to be discharged. The goal was to identify risk predictors of mortality through 5 years among HM3 LVAD recipients conditional on discharge from index hospitalization in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial. This analysis evaluated 485 of 515 (94%) patients discharged after implantation of the HM3 LVAD. Preimplant (baseline), implant surgery, and index hospitalization characteristics were analyzed individually, and as multivariable predictors for mortality risk through 5 years. Cumulative 5-year mortality in the cohort (median age: 62 years, 80% male, 65% White, 61% destination therapy due to transplant ineligibility) was 38%. Two preimplant characteristics (elevated blood urea nitrogen and prior coronary artery bypass graft or valve procedure) and 3 postimplant characteristics (hemocompatibility-related adverse events, ventricular arrhythmias, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at discharge) were predictors of 5-year mortality. In 171 of 485 patients (35.3%) without any risk predictors, 5-year mortality was reduced to 22.6% (95% CI: 15.4%-32.7%). Even among those with 1 or more predictors, mortality was <50% at 5 years (45.7% [95% CI: 39.0%-52.8%]). Long-term survival in successfully discharged HM3 LVAD recipients is largely influenced by clinical events experienced during the index surgical hospitalization in tandem with baseline factors, with mortality of <50% at 5 years. In patients without identified predictors of risk, long-term 5-year mortality is low and rivals that achieved with heart transplantation, even though most were implanted with destination therapy intent. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol, NCT02224755 ; MOMENTUM 3 Pivotal Cohort Extended Follow-up PAS, NCT03982979) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mechanical circulatory support is now a proven therapy for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. The role for this therapy in patients with less severe heart failure is unknown. Objective The objective of this study is to examine the impact of mechanically assisted circulation using the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device in patients who meet current US Food and Drug Administration–defined criteria for treatment but are not yet receiving intravenous inotropic therapy. Methods This is a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial of 200 patients treated with either optimal medical management or a mechanical circulatory support device. Clinical context This trial will be the first prospective clinical evaluation comparing outcomes of patients with advanced ambulatory heart failure treated with either ongoing medical therapy or a left ventricular assist device. It is anticipated to provide novel insights regarding relative outcomes with each treatment and an understanding of patient and provider acceptance of the ventricular assist device therapy. This trial will also provide information regarding the risk of events in “stable” patients with advanced heart failure and guidance for the optimal timing of left ventricular assist device therapy. [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]

Mitral regurgitation (MR) determines pathophysiology and outcome in advanced heart failure. The impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement on clinically significant MR and its contribution to long-term outcomes has been sparsely evaluated. We evaluated the effect of clinically significant MR on patients implanted in the MOMENTUM 3 trial with either the HeartMate II (HMII) or the HeartMate 3 (HM3) at 2 years. Clinical significance was defined as moderate or severe grade MR determined by site-based echocardiograms. Of 927 patients with LVAD implants without a prior or concomitant mitral valve procedure, 403 (43.5%) had clinically significant MR at baseline. At 1-month of support, residual MR was present in 6.2% of patients with HM3 and 14.3% of patients with HMII (relative risk = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22–0.84; p = 0.01) with a low rate of worsening at 2 years. Residual MR at 1-month post-implant did not impact 2-year mortality for either the HM3 (hazard ratio [HR],1.41; 95% CI, 0.52–3.89; p = 0.50) or HMII (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37–2.26; p = 0.84) LVAD. The presence or absence of baseline MR did not influence mortality (HM3 HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56–1.33; p = 0.50; HMII HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54–1.22; p = 0.32), major adverse events or functional capacity. In multivariate analysis, severe baseline MR (p = 0.001), larger left ventricular dimension (p = 0.002), and implantation with the HMII instead of the HM3 LVAD (p = 0.05) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of persistent MR post-implant. Hemodynamic unloading after LVAD implantation improves clinically significant MR early, sustainably, and to a greater extent with the HM3 LVAD. Neither baseline nor residual MR influence outcomes after LVAD implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) are often considered for advanced therapies, including durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles are a commonly used descriptor of disease severity in patients receiving MCS devices, but their role in defining the prognosis of ambulatory patients is less well established, especially for Profiles 6 and 7. Registry Evaluation of Vital Information on Ventricular Assist Devices in Ambulatory Life is a prospective observational study of 400 outpatients from 21 MCS and cardiac transplant centers. Eligible patients had New York Heart Association Class II to IV symptoms despite optimal medical and electrical therapies with a recent HF hospitalization, heart transplant listing, or evidence of high neurohormonal activation. The cohort included 33 INTERMACS Profile 4 (8%), 83 Profile 5 (21%), 155 Profile 6 (39%), and 129 Profile 7 (32%). Across INTERMACS profiles, there were no differences in age, gender, ejection fraction, blood pressure, or use of guideline-directed medical therapy. A lower INTERMACS profile was associated with more hospitalizations, greater frailty, and more impaired functional capacity and quality of life. The composite end point of death, durable MCS, or urgent transplant at 12 months occurred in 39%, 27%, 24%, and 14% subjects with INTERMACS Profiles 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively (p = 0.004). Among ambulatory patients with advanced HF, a lower INTERMACS profile was associated with a greater burden of HF across multiple dimensions and a higher composite risk of durable MCS, urgent transplant, or death. These profiles may assist in risk assessment and triaging ambulatory patients to advanced therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The ROADMAP study showed survival with improved functional status was better with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy compared with optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory, non–inotrope-dependent (INTERMACS [IM] Profile 4 to 7) patients. To study more balanced cohorts and better define which patients may benefit from implantation of an LVAD, we re-evaluated the patients enrolled in ROADMAP when stratified by INTERMACS profile (Profile 4 and Profiles 5 to 7). Methods The primary end-point (survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-minute walk distance ≥75 meters at 1 year), actuarial survival, adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated. Results For INTERMACS Profile 4 (IM4), more LVAD patients met the primary end-point compared with OMM patients (40% vs 15%; odds ratio = 3.9 [1.2 to 12.7], p = 0.024), but there was no statistically significant difference for INTERMACS Profiles IM 5 to 7 (IM5-7). Event-free survival on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD than for OMM patients in both IM4 (67% vs 28%; p < 0.001) and IM5-7 (76% vs 49%; p = 0.025) p rofile groups. Composite end-points of survival on original therapy with improved HRQoL or depression were better with LVAD than OMM in IM4, but not IM5-7. AEs trended higher in LVAD compared with OMM patients in both profile groups. Rehospitalization rates for LVAD vs OMM were similar between treatment arms in IM4 (82% vs 86%; p = 0.780), but were higher for LVAD in IM5-7 (93% vs 71%; p = 0.016). Conclusions LVAD patients in IM4, but not IM5-7, are more likely to meet the primary end-point and have improvements in HRQoL and depression compared with OMM, even with AEs generally being more frequent. LVAD therapy with current technology may be beneficial in select IM4 patients, but can be deferred for most IM5-7 patients, who should be followed closely due to the high frequency of treatment failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Multicenter Study of MAGLEV Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) clinical trial demonstrated improved 6-month event-free survival, but a detailed analysis of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and functional capacity (FC) was not presented. Further, the effect of early serious adverse events (SAEs) on these metrics and on the general ability to live well while supported with a left ventricular assist system (LVAS) warrants evaluation. Methods FC (New York Heart Association [NYHA] and 6-minute walk test [6MWT]) and HR-QOL (European Quality of Life [EQ-5D-5L] and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy [KCCQ]) assessments were obtained at baseline and 6 months after HeartMate 3 (HM3, n = 151; Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) or HeartMate II (HMII, n = 138; Abbott) implant as part of the MOMENTUM 3 clinical trial. Metrics were compared between devices and in those with and without events. The proportion of patients “living well on an LVAS” at 6 months, defined as alive with satisfactory FC (NYHA I/II or 6MWT > 300 meters) and HR-QOL (overall KCCQ > 50), was evaluated. Results Although the median (25th–75th percentile) patient KCCQ (change for HM3: +28 [10–46]; HMII: +29 [9–48]) and EQ-5D-5L (change for HM3: –1 [–5 to 0]; HMII: –2 [–6 to 0]) scores improved from baseline to 6 months ( p < 0.05), there were no differences between devices ( p > 0.05). Likewise, there was an equivalent improvement in 6MWT distance at 6 months in HM3 (+94 [1–274] meters] and HMII (+188[43–340 meters]) from baseline. In patients with SAEs ( n = 188), 6MWTs increased from baseline ( p < 0.001), but gains for both devices were less than those without SAE (HM3: +74 [–9 to 183] meters with SAE vs +140 [35–329] meters without SAE; HMII: +177 [47–356] meters with SAE vs +192 [23–337] meters without SAE, both p < 0.003). SAEs did not affect the 6-month HR-QOL scores. The “living well” end point was achieved in 145 HM3 (63%) and 120 HMII (68%) patients ( p = 0.44). Conclusions Gains in HR-QOL and FC were similar early after HM3 and HMII implant. 6MWT improvements were attenuated in patients experiencing SAEs, but HR-QOL metrics did not change. The development of left ventricular assist device–specific HR-QOL tools is needed to better characterize the effect of SAEs on a patient’s well-being. Clinical Trial No MOMENTUM 3 clinical trial #NCT02224755. [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]