Search

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]

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]

Background: The MOMENTUM 3 study (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3) has demonstrated that the HeartMate 3 (HM3) pump is associated with reduced strokes compared with the HeartMate II (HMII) device. We now perform a comprehensive analysis of stroke events to evaluate their longitudinal occurrence, clinical correlates, patterns, and impact on outcome across the 2-year duration of support.Methods: MOMENTUM 3 is a randomized controlled trial of the HM3 centrifugal-flow pump versus the HMII axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, regardless of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). Baseline and postimplantation clinical correlates of stroke events were assessed with multivariable analyses. Longitudinal patterns, including device association, type of stroke (hemorrhagic versus ischemic), changing severity of impairment assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (disabling [modified Rankin Scale score >3] versus nondisabling [modified Rankin Scale score ≤3]) over time, and association with outcome, were determined.Results: In 361 patients with the intended implant (189 HM3 and 172 HMII), 65 strokes (40 ischemic strokes and 25 hemorrhagic strokes) occurred in 52 patients at a median of 131 (range, 1-733) days. No difference in stroke rate was noted between 0 and 180 days of follow-up between devices. However, stroke incidence in the long-term period (181-730 days after left ventricular assist device) was 3.3 times lower for the HM3 group (HM3: 0.04 versus HMII: 0.13 events per patient-year; odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63; P=0.01). Treatment with the HM3 pump was the only independent predictor of lower stroke events. We found no direct association of blood pressure or antithrombotic regimens with observed stroke rates. A stroke event significantly lowered 2-year postimplantation survival regardless of subtype or initial severity of neurological impairment compared with patients without a stroke (43±12% for hemorrhagic stroke, 57±9% for ischemic stroke, 51±11% for disabling, and 51±11% for nondisabling compared with 85±2% 2-year survival for patients without stroke).Conclusions: The HM3 pump is associated with a marked reduction in stroke rates compared with the HMII device, with benefits observed in the long-term period (>6 months). The occurrence of stroke of any type (hemorrhagic and ischemic) or of any functional severity (disabling and nondisabling) is predictive of a poor 2-year clinical outcome.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT02224755. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist systems increase the rate of survival among patients with advanced heart failure but are associated with the development of pump thrombosis. We investigated the effects of a new magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow pump that was engineered to avert thrombosis.Methods: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the new centrifugal continuous-flow pump or a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump. Patients could be enrolled irrespective of the intended goal of pump support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The primary end point was a composite of survival free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove the device at 6 months after implantation. The trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points).Results: Of 294 patients, 152 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 142 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 131 patients (86.2%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group and in 109 (76.8%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 9.4 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, -2.1 [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.95 [two-tailed P=0.04 for superiority]). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death or disabling stroke, but reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (1 [0.7%] vs. 11 [7.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.60; P=0.002). Suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis occurred in no patients in the centrifugal-flow pump group and in 14 patients (10.1%) in the axial-flow pump group.Conclusions: Among patients with advanced heart failure, implantation of a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was associated with better outcomes at 6 months than was implantation of an axial-flow pump, primarily because of the lower rate of reoperation for pump malfunction. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, 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]