Search

Heart transplantation remains the gold standard treatment for end-stage heart failure patients without contraindications. However, limited donor availability and long wait times have created a need for left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) to be used as a bridge to transplantation in appropriately selected patients. Improvements in LVAD technology have resulted in improved short- and long-term outcomes, further supporting the use of these devices for a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) indication. LVAD utilization as BTT exhibits notable disparities worldwide, mainly due to variations in organ availability, allocation policies, and financial constraints. Although Europe has experienced a consistent increase in the use of LVAD for this purpose, the United Network for Organ Sharing 2018 policy amendment resulted in a significant reduction in the number of LVADs used for BTT in the US. To overcome this issue, modifications in the US allocation policy to consider factors such as days on device support, age, and type of complications may be necessary to potentially increase implantation rates.The authors provide an overview comparing the current state of heart transplantation in the US and Europe, with a particular focus on how distinct allocation policies and organ availability impact medical practices. Additionally, the review will examine critical aspects ranging from patient selection and pre-implantation optimization to post-transplant outcomes. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current practice of atrial fibrillation ablation (AFA) as a treatment option for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) across Europe, their clinical profiles and outcomes is still undefined. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) led a prospective observational registry of consecutive patients undergoing AFA, in 27 member countries. The subgroup of patients with HF, followed-up for 1 year, was analyzed and the results are reported. Of the 3582 AF patients in the Registry, 537 (14.9%) had HF. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 2, structural heart disease and persistent AF were more common in HF than non-HF patients (all p < 0.001). However the in-hospital complications were less frequent in HF patients (5.0% vs. 8.2% p = 0.01). Both in-hospital and 1-year outcomes, including 1-year AF recurrence (15.4%) and repeat ablations (9.5%), were similar in both groups. We subdivided HF patients according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) at baseline into reduced (HFrEF, <40%), mid-range (HFmEF, 40–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥ 50%). Most patients were HFpEF (n 375, 77%), 72 (15%) were HFmEF and 8% HFrEF. The most frequent underlying conditions in HFpEF were hypertension and ischemic heart disease, while those most common in HFmEF and HFrEF were valvular and dilated cardiomyopathy. In routine care in Europe, HF patients represent a minority of patients undergoing AFA, and most belong to the HFpEF phenotype. The limited clinical research on AFA HFpEF patients is reflected by the uncertainty expressed in the current AF Guidelines and Expert statements. • A survey conducted by the ESC in 27 member countries evaluated the practice use of atrial fibrillation ablation. • 3582 ablated patients were enrolled, 537 with HF, 77% of which had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF≥50%). • In contrast most randomized clinical research trials focused on HF with reduced LVEF (35-40%). • Such asymmetry in evidence may account for some inconsistency in current Guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In nonrandomized, open-label studies, a transcatheter interatrial shunt device (IASD, Corvia Medical) was associated with lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), fewer symptoms, and greater quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with heart failure (HF) and midrange or preserved ejection fraction (EF ≥40%). We conducted the first randomized sham-controlled trial to evaluate the IASD in HF with EF ≥40%.Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF I (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, blinded multicenter trial in patients with New York Heart Association class III or ambulatory class IV HF, EF ≥40%, exercise PCWP ≥25 mm Hg, and PCWP-right atrial pressure gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Participants were randomized (1:1) to the IASD versus a sham procedure (femoral venous access with intracardiac echocardiography but no IASD placement). The participants and investigators assessing the participants during follow-up were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary effectiveness end point was exercise PCWP at 1 month. The primary safety end point was major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and renal events at 1 month. PCWP during exercise was compared between treatment groups using a mixed-effects repeated measures model analysis of covariance that included data from all available stages of exercise.Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled, of whom 44 met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were randomized to the IASD (n=22) and control (n=22) groups. Mean age was 70±9 years, and 50% were female. At 1 month, the IASD resulted in a greater reduction in PCWP compared with sham control (P=0.028 accounting for all stages of exercise). Peak PCWP decreased by 3.5±6.4 mm Hg in the treatment group versus 0.5±5.0 mm Hg in the control group (P=0.14). There were no peri-procedural or 1-month major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and renal events in the IASD group and 1 event (worsening renal function) in the control group (P=1.0).Conclusions: In patients with HF and EF ≥40%, IASD treatment reduces PCWP during exercise. Whether this mechanistic effect will translate into sustained improvements in symptoms and outcomes requires further evaluation.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02600234. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) was founded on 10 December 2009 with the initiative of Roland Hetzer (Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany) and Jan Gummert (Herz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany) with 15 other founding international members. It aims to promote scientific research to improve care of end-stage heart failure patients with ventricular assist device or a total artificial heart as long-term mechanical circulatory support. Likewise, the organization aims to provide and maintain a registry of device implantation data and long-term follow-up of patients with mechanical circulatory support. Hence, EUROMACS affiliated itself with Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd to offer its members a software tool that allows input and analysis of patient clinical data on a daily basis. EUROMACS facilitates further scientific studies by offering research groups access to any available data wherein patients and centres are anonymized. Furthermore, EUROMACS aims to stimulate cooperation with clinical and research institutions and with peer associations involved to further its aims. EUROMACS is the only European-based Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support with rapid increase in institutional and individual membership. Because of the expeditious data input, the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgeons saw the need to optimize the data availability and the significance of the registry to improve care of patients withmechanical circulatory support and its potential contribution to scientific intents; hence, the beginning of their alliance in 2012. This first annual report is designed to provide an overview of EUROMACS' structure, its activities, a first data collection and an insight to its scientific contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve two-year survival and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. Following the MOMENTUM 3 study, Heartmate 3 (HM3) LVAD is the only device approved in the US and Europe. Data for event-free survival beyond two years on HM 3 is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the adverse event profile in patients who survive more than 2 years on support. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who received a HM3 LVAD at our center between 5/8/2015-10/29/2018. Patients who were alive two years following LVAD implant and were still on LVAD support were included in the study and followed for an additional two years. Patient outcomes including hospitalizations over the subsequent two years of follow-up were recorded (between year 2 and 4). Event percent per year (EPPY) was calculated for each of these outcomes. 127 patients received an LVAD during the study period with a 2 year survival rate of 85.1%. Within the first 2 years, 19 patients died, 39 patients were transplanted, and 13 transferred institutions or were lost to follow up. 56 patients remained on support and were included in this analysis and followed for an additional 2 years. The average age was 61 ± 14, 81% were male. Of those 56 patients, 50 patients were alive on support 4 years after LVAD implant (89%) (3 died and 3 patients underwent transplant). Between years 2 and 4 years from HM 3 implant, 51% were hospitalized. The most common causes of hospitalization were ADHF (0.142 EPPY), drive line infection (DLI) (.0268 EPPY) and GI bleed (0.0089 EPPY). In patients surviving 2 years on HM3 LVAD support the overall survival rate for additional 2 years is excellent. However, half of the patients will be hospitalized during long-term support, highlighting the need for more studies of medical management to prevent complications in this cohort of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]