Search

Background: 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)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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 m 2 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%])., Conclusions: 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)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was sponsored by Abbott. The sponsor had a role in design of the study, selection of centers, data collection, and analyzing study data. The decisions on manuscript development and submission were within the primary purview of the academic investigators. The manuscript writing, revision, and decision to submit for publication were driven by the trial publications and presentation committee. The sponsor did not control the decision to which journal the manuscript was submitted. The sponsor approved the manuscript prior to submission. The manuscript was written and reviewed by the authors. The sponsor assisted with all data requests under the direction of the first and corresponding author. Dr Hall is a consultant/advisory board member for Abbott, Abiomed, Evaheart, CareDx, and Natera. Dr Uriel is on the advisory board for Livemetric, Revamp, and Leviticus; and has received grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, and Fire1. Dr Goldstein has served as a medical advisory board member for Abbott; and has served as a consultant for Abbott and Abiomed. Dr Cleveland has served as a Clinical Events Committee and Data and Safety Monitoring Board member for Abbott Studies. Dr Cowger has served as a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Bioventrix, Endotronix, and Procyrion; and has received grant support and speaker fees from Abbott. Dr Salerno has received personal fees from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Naka has received personal fees from Abbott. Dr Horstmanshof has served as a consultant for Abbott. Dr Crandall and Ms Wang are employees of Abbott. Dr Mehra has received payment made to institution from Abbott for consulting; has received consulting fees from Mesoblast, Janssen, Moderna, Paragonix, and Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and has served as an advisory board member for Transmedics, NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: The analysis cohort included 1015 HM3 patients divided into 2 groups: BSA ≤1.70 m 2 (small patients, n = 82) and BSA >1.70 m 2 (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., Results: 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/m 2 ; 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation., Methods: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813., Findings: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (p interaction =0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications., Interpretation: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group., Funding: Abbott., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JL has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Sensible Medical, and Volumetrix and is a consultant for Abbott, Alleviant Medical, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave. ASD has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis, is a consultant for Abbott and Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, DalCor Pharma, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, and Regeneron, and has received personal fees from Lupin Pharma and Sun Pharma. KB is a consultant for Abbott and has received personal fees from Pfizer and Novartis. DH is a consultant for Abbott, has received personal fees from Abbott, and has served on advisory boards for Abbott. SRK is a consultant for Abbott and CareDx and has received personal fees from Abbott and CareDx. MRM is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Portola, Bayer, Triple Gene, and Baim Institute for Clinical Research, has served on advisory boards for Abbott and Mesoblast, has served on the Clinical Events Committee for GUIDE-HF through the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and has stock in NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart. SFS has received research grants from Medtronic and Zoll, is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and has received personal fees from Medtronic and Zoll. AJS is a consultant for Abbott and has received personal fees from Abbott. FS has received research grants from Amgen and is a consultant for Abbott. MRZ, AD, AM, SP, and MRC are consultants for Abbott. NJ, PS, GG, JH, and PBA are employees of Abbott. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: A central goal among researchers and policy makers seeking to implement clinical interventions is to identify key facilitators and barriers that contribute to implementation success. Despite calls from a number of scholars, empirical insights into the complex structural and cultural predictors of why decision aids (DAs) become routinely embedded in health care settings remains limited and highly variable across implementation contexts., Methods: We examined associations between "reach", a widely used indicator (from the RE-AIM model) of implementation success, and multi-level site characteristics of nine LVAD clinics engaged over 18 months in implementation and dissemination of a decision aid for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) treatment. Based on data collected from nurse coordinators, we explored factors at the level of the organization (e.g. patient volume), patient population (e.g. health literacy; average sickness level), clinician characteristics (e.g. attitudes towards decision aid; readiness for change) and process (how the aid was administered). We generated descriptive statistics for each site and calculated zero-order correlations (Pearson's r) between all multi-level site variables including cumulative reach at 12 months and 18 months for all sites. We used principal components analysis (PCA) to examine any latent factors governing relationships between and among all site characteristics, including reach., Results: We observed strongest inclines in reach of our decision aid across the first year, with uptake fluctuating over the second year. Average reach across sites was 63% (s.d. = 19.56) at 12 months and 66% (s.d. = 19.39) at 18 months. Our PCA revealed that site characteristics positively associated with reach on two distinct dimensions, including a first dimension reflecting greater organizational infrastructure and standardization (characteristic of larger, more established clinics) and a second dimension reflecting positive attitudinal orientations, specifically, openness and capacity to give and receive decision support among coordinators and patients., Conclusions: Successful implementation plans should incorporate specific efforts to promote supportive and mutually informative interactions between clinical staff members and to institute systematic and standardized protocols to enhance the availability, convenience and salience of intervention tool in routine practice. Further research is needed to understand whether "core predictors" of success vary across different intervention types.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are well established in the treatment of advanced heart failure, but it is unclear whether outcomes are different based on the intended goal of therapy in patients who are eligible vs ineligible for heart transplant., Objective: To determine whether clinical outcomes in the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial differed by preoperative categories of bridge to transplant (BTT) or bridge to transplant candidacy (BTC) vs destination therapy (DT)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a prespecified secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD to the axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) pump. It was conducted in 69 centers with expertise in managing patients with advanced heart failure in the United States. Patients with advanced heart failure were randomized to an LVAD, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy (BTT/BTC or DT)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device at 2 years. Secondary end points included adverse events, functional status, and quality of life., Results: Of the 1020 patients with implants (515 with HM3 devices [50.5%] and 505 with HMII devices [49.5%]), 396 (38.8%) were in the BTT/BTC group (mean [SD] age, 55 [12] years; 310 men [78.3%]) and 624 (61.2%) in the DT group (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 513 men [82.2%]). Of the patients initially deemed as transplant ineligible, 84 of 624 patients (13.5%) underwent heart transplant within 2 years of LVAD implant. In the primary end point analysis, HM3 use was superior to HMII use in patients in the BTT/BTC group (76.8% vs 67.3% for survival free of disabling stroke and reoperation; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]; log-rank P = .02) and patients in the DT group (73.2% vs 58.7%; hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.81]; log-rank P < .001). For patients in both BTT/BTC and DT groups, there were not significantly different reductions in rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding with HM3 use relative to HMII use. Improvements in quality of life and functional capacity for either pump were not significantly different regardless of preimplant strategy., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the superior treatment effect of HM3 over HMII was similar for patients in the BTT/BTC or DT groups. It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02224755.

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been shown to be a viable and effective treatment for patients suffering from refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS), which is associated with high mortality rates. Although ECMO therapy used as short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has shown tremendous growth in its application over the past decade, the complication and mortality rates remain high. This retrospective study analyzes complications associated with VA-ECMO support, evaluates the use of defined protocols at a single center, and examines factors that may contribute to patient complication and mortality., Methods: This retrospective analysis included 184 patients who were supported with ECMO from September 2014 through March 2018 at Integris Baptist Medical Center (IBMC). Descriptive statistics were generated to analyze baseline characteristics, demographics, complications, and outcomes., Results: Acute myocardial infarct (AMI) was the primary etiology of this cohort (N=40; 22%). The mean age was 55±15 (median 56, range 15-84) years. All patients were inotrope and/or vasopressor dependent prior to ECMO initiation. Mean time on ECMO support was 7.8±7.9 days with median time of 6 days. Total patient days on support were 1,430. Most ECMO cannulations, 97 (52%) were performed within Integris Baptist Medical Center, with 48% done outside the hospital; 38% were performed outside of the hospital by the IBMC ECMO team, and 10.5% were performed by an outside team. Bleeding was noted to be the most common VA ECMO complication [N=41; 22.3%; 0.028 events per patient day (EPPD)]., Conclusions: A dedicated 24/7 ECMO service using a multidisciplinary team (MDT) and defined protocols in a single center is able to effectively reduce complications due to VA-ECMO support in the sickest of the sick VA-ECMO patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: A El Banayosy, MD, D Horstmanshof, MD, and JW Long, MD, PhD are consultants. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) refractory to conventional therapies continues to be a challenging medical syndrome, with poor prognosis and high complication and mortality rates. The application and use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is a component in the treatment of CS patients and should be applied early in the presentation. Crucial to the success of their application, temporary MCS devices should be chosen based on degree of patient acuity and etiology of CS. Not all temporary MCS devices deliver the same degree of hemodynamic support and range from minimal support to systemic support via veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In an early analysis of this trial, use of a magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow circulatory pump was found to improve clinical outcomes, as compared with a mechanical-bearing axial continuous-flow pump, at 6 months in patients with advanced heart failure., Methods: In a randomized noninferiority and superiority trial, we compared the centrifugal-flow pump with the axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score of >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The noninferiority margin for the risk difference (centrifugal-flow pump group minus axial-flow pump group) was -10 percentage points., Results: Of 366 patients, 190 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 176 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (79.5%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 106 (60.2%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, 9.8 percentage points [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.69 [P<0.001 for superiority]). Reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (3 patients [1.6%] vs. 30 patients [17.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P<0.001). The rates of death and disabling stroke were similar in the two groups, but the overall rate of stroke was lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (10.1% vs. 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.84, P=0.02)., Conclusions: In patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was superior to a mechanical-bearing axial-flow pump with regard to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755 .).

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., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 .).

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a serious complication of surgery. Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) is 1 of the most common causative organisms responsible for SSI. Patients who are carriers of methicillin-resistant S aureus and methicillin-sensitive S aureus are at increased risk of developing S aureus-associated SSIs. Decolonization of skin with chlorhexidine and nares with mupirocin may reduce the risk of SSI., Objective: The primary object of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness of preoperative universal decolonization of skin with chlorhexidine and nares with intranasal mupirocin in preventing SSIs., Methods: The following databases were searched: Ovid Medline (from 1946 to September week 3, 2015), Embase (1947 to 2015, week 38), EBSCO CINHAL (1980-2015), Cochrane Collaboration for Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, and Google Scholar., Study Selection: All experimental and nonexperimental studies that evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine in combination with intranasal mupirocin for decolonization were included. Inclusion was limited to published studies written in English. A total of 19 studies were included in this review. One study was deleted from final analysis as other agents were used for skin decolonization., Data Extraction: Data were extracted independently by 2 members of the study team. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion., Results: Decolonization with topical chlorhexidine and intranasal mupirocin resulted in reduction of S aureus SSI and methicillin-resistant S aureus nosocomial infection and eradication of S aureus nasal carriage. Incidence of SSIs was significantly reduced in 10 studies, which was the primary outcome. Four of the 10 studies used preoperative universal decolonization and significant reduction in SSI was observed in cardiac and orthopedic patients., Conclusion: The results of this review indicate the combination of topical chlorhexidine and intranasal mupirocin is effective in reducing S aureus-associated SSIs.

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., (Copyright © 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)