David J. Farrar

Advanced Heart Failure Treated with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced heart failure have improved survival rates and quality of life when treated with implanted pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices as compared with medical therapy. New continuous-flow devices are smaller and may be more durable than the pulsatile-flow devices. METHODS In this randomized trial, we enrolled patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for transplantation, in a 2:1 ratio, to undergo implantation of a continuous-flow device (134 patients) or the currently approved pulsatile-flow device (66 patients). The primary composite end point was, at 2 years, survival free from disabling stroke and reoperation to repair or replace the device. Secondary end points included survival, frequency of adverse events, the quality of life, and functional capacity. RESULTS Preoperative characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups, with a median age of 64 years (range, 26 to 81), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%, and nearly 80% of patients receiving intravenous inotropic agents. The primary composite end point was achieved in more patients with continuous-flow devices than with pulsatile-flow devices (62 of 134 [46%] vs. 7 of 66 [11%]; P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.54; P<0.001), and patients with continuous-flow devices had superior actuarial survival rates at 2 years (58% vs. 24%, P=0.008). Adverse events and device replacements were less frequent in patients with the continuous-flow device. The quality of life and functional capacity improved significantly in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced heart failure significantly improved the probability of survival free from stroke and device failure at 2 years as compared with a pulsatile device. Both devices significantly improved the quality of life and functional capacity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121485.)

Extended Mechanical Circulatory Support With a Continuous-Flow Rotary Left Ventricular Assist Device

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the use of a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to heart transplantation. BACKGROUND LVAD therapy is an established treatment modality for patients with advanced heart failure. Pulsatile LVADs have limitations in design precluding their use for extended support. Continuous-flow rotary LVADs represent an innovative design with potential for small size and greater reliability by simplification of the pumping mechanism. METHODS In a prospective, multicenter study, 281 patients urgently listed (United Network of Organ Sharing status 1A or 1B) for heart transplantation underwent implantation of a continuous-flow LVAD. Survival and transplantation rates were assessed at 18 months. Patients were assessed for adverse events throughout the study and for quality of life, functional status, and organ function for 6 months. RESULTS Of 281 patients, 222 (79%) underwent transplantation, LVAD removal for cardiac recovery, or had ongoing LVAD support at 18-month follow-up. Actuarial survival on support was 72% (95% confidence interval: 65% to 79%) at 18 months. At 6 months, there were significant improvements in functional status and 6-min walk test (from 0% to 83% of patients in New York Heart Association functional class I or II and from 13% to 89% of patients completing a 6-min walk test) and in quality of life (mean values improved 41% with Minnesota Living With Heart Failure and 75% with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaires). Major adverse events included bleeding, stroke, right heart failure, and percutaneous lead infection. Pump thrombosis occurred in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS A continuous-flow LVAD provides effective hemodynamic support for at least 18 months in patients awaiting transplantation, with improved functional status and quality of life. (Thoratec HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist System [LVAS] for Bridge to Cardiac Transplantation; NCT00121472).

Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes of right ventricular failure in a large population of patients implanted with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. METHODS Patients (n = 484) enrolled in the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device (Thoratec, Pleasanton, Calif) bridge-to-transplantation clinical trial were examined for the occurrence of right ventricular failure. Right ventricular failure was defined as requiring a right ventricular assist device, 14 or more days of inotropic support after implantation, and/or inotropic support starting more than 14 days after implantation. Demographics, along with clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data, were compared between patients with and without right ventricular failure, and risk factors were identified. RESULTS Overall, 30 (6%) patients receiving left ventricular assist devices required a right ventricular assist device, 35 (7%) required extended inotropes, and 33 (7%) required late inotropes. A significantly greater percentage of patients without right ventricular failure survived to transplantation, recovery, or ongoing device support at 180 days compared with patients with right ventricular failure (89% vs 71%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a central venous pressure/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio of greater than 0.63 (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.3; P = .009), need for preoperative ventilator support (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-13.2; P < .001), and blood urea nitrogen level of greater than 39 mg/dL (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.1; P = .02) were independent predictors of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of right ventricular failure in patients with a HeartMate II ventricular assist device is comparable or less than that of patients with pulsatile-flow devices. Its occurrence is associated with worse outcomes than seen in patients without right ventricular failure. Patients at risk for right ventricular failure might benefit from preoperative optimization of right heart function or planned biventricular support.

Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Improves Functional Capacity and Quality of Life of Advanced Heart Failure Patients

OBJECTIVES This study sought to assess the impact of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life. BACKGROUND Newer continuous-flow LVAD are smaller and quieter than pulsatile-flow LVADs. METHODS Data from advanced heart failure patients enrolled in the HeartMate II LVAD (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) bridge to transplantation (BTT) (n = 281) and destination therapy (DT) (n = 374) trials were analyzed. Functional status (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class, 6-min walk distance, patient activity scores), and quality of life (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure [MLWHF] and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires [KCCQ]) were collected before and after LVAD implantation. RESULTS Compared with baseline, LVAD patients demonstrated early and sustained improvements in functional status and quality of life. Most patients had NYHA functional class IV symptoms at baseline. Following implant, 82% (BTT) and 80% (DT) of patients at 6 months and 79% (DT) at 24 months improved to NYHA functional class I or II. Mean 6-min walk distance in DT patients was 204 m in patients able to ambulate at baseline, which improved to 350 and 360 m at 6 and 24 months. There were also significant and sustained improvements from baseline in both BTT and DT patients in median MLWHF scores (by 40 and 42 U in DT patients, or 52% and 55%, at 6 and 24 months, respectively), and KCCQ overall summary scores (by 39 and 41 U, or 170% and 178%). CONCLUSIONS Use of a continuous flow LVAD in advanced heart failure patients results in clinically relevant improvements in functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life.

Results of the Post-U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approval Study With a Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation: A Prospective Study Using the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether results with the HeartMate (HM) II left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) in a commercial setting are comparable to other available devices for the same indication. BACKGROUND After a multicenter pivotal clinical trial conducted from 2005 to 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the HM II LVAD for bridge to transplantation (BTT). A post-approval study was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether results with the device in a commercial setting are comparable to other available devices for the same indication. METHODS The study was a prospective evaluation of the first 169 consecutive HM II patients enrolled in the national INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) who were listed for transplant or likely to be listed. Patients were enrolled from April through August 2008 at 77 U.S. centers and followed for at least 1 year after implant. A comparison group (COMP) included all patients (n = 169 at 27 centers) enrolled in the INTERMACS registry with other types of LVADs (79% HeartMate XVE, 21% Implantable Ventricular Assist Device [Thoratec Corporation]) for the same BTT indication in the same time period. Survival rates, adverse events, and quality of life with the EuroQol EQ-5D visual analog scale were obtained in the INTERMACS registry. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar, but creatinine and blood urea nitrogen were lower in the HM II versus COMP groups, and there were fewer patients in the highest-risk INTERMACS patient profile Number 1 (24% for HM II vs. 39% for COMP). Adverse event rates were similar or lower for HM II versus COMP for all events. Bleeding was the most frequent adverse event for both groups (1.44 vs. 1.79 events/patient-year). Operative 30-day mortality for HM II was 4% versus 11% for COMP. The percentage of patients reaching transplant, cardiac recovery, or ongoing LVAD support by 6 months was 91% for HM II and 80% for COMP, and the Kaplan-Meier survival for patients remaining on support at 1 year was 85% for HM II versus 70% for COMP. Quality of life was significantly improved at 3 months of support and sustained through 12 months in both groups compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS The results in a post-market approval, actual patient care setting BTT population support the original findings from the pivotal clinical trial regarding the efficacy and risk profile of the HM II LVAD. These data suggest that dissemination of this technology after approval has been associated with continued excellent results.

Low Thromboembolism and Pump Thrombosis With the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device: Analysis of Outpatient Anti-coagulation

BACKGROUND The HeartMate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) is an effective bridge to transplantation (BTT) but requires anti-coagulation with warfarin and aspirin. We evaluated the risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage related to the degree of anti-coagulation as reflected by the international normalized ratio (INR). METHODS INRs were measured monthly for 6 months in all discharged HeartMate II BTT patients and at an event. Each INR was assigned to ranges of INRs. Adverse events analyzed were ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, pump thrombosis, and bleeding requiring surgery or transfusion. Events were correlated to the INR during the event and at the start of the month. RESULTS In 331 patients discharged on support, 10 had thrombotic events (9 ischemic strokes, 3 pump thromboses), and 58 had hemorrhagic events (7 strokes, 4 hemorrhages requiring surgery, and 102 requiring transfusions). The median INR was 2.1 at discharge and 1.90 at 6 months. Although the incidence of stroke was low, 40% of ischemic strokes occurred in patients with INRs < 1.5 and 33% of hemorrhagic strokes were in patients with INRs > 3.0. The highest incidence of bleeding was at INRs > 2.5. CONCLUSIONS The rate of thromboembolism during long-term outpatient support with the HeartMate II is low. The low number of thrombotic events appears to be offset by a greater number of hemorrhagic events. An appropriate target INR is 1.5 to 2.5 in addition to aspirin therapy. In patients having recurrent episodes of bleeding, the risk of lowering the target INR appears to be small.

Long-term follow-up of Thoratec ventricular assist device bridge-to-recovery patients successfully removed from support after recovery of ventricular function.

BACKGROUND In certain forms of severe heart failure there is sufficient improvement in cardiac function during ventricular assist device (VAD) support to allow removal of the device. However, it is critical to know whether there is sustained recovery of the heart and long-term patient survival if VAD bridging to recovery is to be considered over the option of transplantation. METHODS To determine long-term outcome of survivors of VAD bridge-to-recovery procedures, we retrospectively evaluated 22 patients with non-ischemic heart failure successfully weaned from the Thoratec left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or biventricular assist device (BVAD) after recovery of ventricular function at 14 medical centers. All patients were in imminent risk of dying and were selected for VAD support using standard bridge-to-transplant requirements. There were 12 females and 10 males with an average age of 32 (range, 12-49). The etiologies were 12 with myocarditis, 7 with cardiomyopathies (4 post-partum [PPCM], 1 viral [VCM], and 2 idiopathic [IDCM]), and 3 with a combination of myocarditis and cardiomyopathy. BVADs were used in 13 patients and isolated LVADs in 9 patients, for an average duration of 57 days (range, 11-190 days), before return of ventricular function and successful weaning from the device. Post-VAD survival was compared with 43 VAD bridge-to-transplant patients with the same etiologies who underwent cardiac transplantation instead of device weaning. RESULTS Nineteen of the 22 patients are currently alive. Three patients required heart transplantation, 1 within 1 day, 2 at 12 and 13 months post-weaning, and 2 died at 2.5 and 6 months. The remaining 17 patients are alive with their native hearts after an average of 3.2 years (range, 1.2-10 years). The actuarial survival of native hearts (transplant-free survival) post-VAD support is 86% at 1 year and 77% at 5 years, which was not significantly different (p = 0.94) from that of post-VAD transplanted patients, also at 86% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Long-term survival for bridge-to-recovery with VADs for acute cardiomyopathies and myocarditis is equivalent to that for cardiac transplantation. Recovery of the native heart, which can take weeks to months of VAD support, is the most desirable clinical outcome and should be actively sought, with transplantation used only after recovery of ventricular function has been ruled out.

Preoperative and postoperative comparison of patients with univentricular and biventricular support with the thoratec ventricular assist device as a bridge to cardiac transplantation

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether there are differences in populations of patients with heart failure who require univentricular or biventricular circulatory support. METHODS Two hundred thirteen patients who were in imminent risk of dying before donor heart procurement and who received Thoratec left (LVAD) and right (RVAD) ventricular assist devices at 35 hospitals were divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 74), patients adequately supported with isolated LVADs; group 2 (n = 37), patients initially receiving an LVAD and later requiring an RVAD; and group 3 (n = 102), patients who received biventricular assistance (BiVAD) from the beginning. RESULTS There were no significant differences in any preoperative factors between the two BiVAD groups. In the combined BiVAD groups, pre-VAD cardiac index (BiVAD, 1.4 +/- 0.6 L/min per square meter, vs LVAD, 1.6 +/- 0.6 L/min per square meter) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (BiVAD, 27 +/- 8 mm Hg, vs LVAD, 30 +/- 8 mm Hg) were significantly lower than those in the LVAD group, and pre-VAD creatinine levels were significantly higher (BiVAD, 1.9 +/- 1.1 mg/dl, vs LVAD, 1.4 +/- 0.6 mg/dl). In addition, greater proportions of patients in the BiVAD groups required mechanical ventilation before VAD placement (60% vs 35%) and were implanted under emergency conditions than in the LVAD group (22% vs 9%). The survival of patients through heart transplantation was significantly better in patients who had an LVAD (74%) than in those who had BiVADs (58%). However, there were no significant differences in posttransplantation survival through hospital discharge (LVAD, 89%; BiVAD, 81%). CONCLUSION Patients who received LVADs were less severely ill before the operation and consequently were more likely to survive after the operation. As the severity of illness increases, patients are more likely to require biventricular support.

Predicting Survival in Patients Receiving Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices The HeartMate II Risk Score

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to derive and validate a model to predict survival in candidates for HeartMate II (HMII) (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. BACKGROUND LVAD mortality risk prediction is important for candidate selection and communicating expectations to patients and clinicians. With the evolution of LVAD support, prior risk prediction models have become less valid. METHODS Patients enrolled into the HMII bridge to transplantation and destination therapy trials (N = 1,122) were randomly divided into derivation (DC) (n = 583) and validation cohorts (VC) (n = 539). Pre-operative candidate predictors of 90-day mortality were examined in the DC with logistic regression, from which the HMII Risk Score (HMRS) was derived. The HMRS was then applied to the VC. RESULTS There were 149 (13%) deaths within 90 days. In the DC, mortality (n = 80) was higher in older patients (odds ratio [OR]: 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 1.7 per 10 years), those with greater hypoalbuminemia (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.76 per mg/dl of albumin), renal dysfunction (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4 to 3.2 per mg/dl creatinine), coagulopathy (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.7 to 5.8 per international normalized ratio unit), and in those receiving LVAD support at less experienced centers (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.2 to 4.4 for <15 trial patients). Mortality in the DC low, medium, and high HMRS groups was 4%, 16%, and 29%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the VC, corresponding mortality was 8%, 11%, and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). HMRS discrimination was good (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS The HMRS might be useful for mortality risk stratification in HMII candidates and may serve as an additional tool in the patient selection process.

Renal and Hepatic Function Improve in Advanced Heart Failure Patients During Continuous-Flow Support With the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device

Background— The effects of continuous blood flow and reduced pulsatility on major organ function have not been studied in detail. Methods and Results— We evaluated renal (creatinine and blood urea nitrogen) and hepatic (aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, and total bilirubin) function in 309 (235 male, 74 female) advanced heart failure patients who had been supported with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device for bridge to transplantation. To determine whether patients with impaired renal and hepatic function improve over time with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support or whether there are any detrimental effects in patients with normal organ function, we divided patients into those with above-normal and normal laboratory values before implantation and measured blood chemistry over time during left ventricular assist device support. There were significant improvements over 6 months in all parameters in the above-normal groups, with values in the normal groups remaining in the normal range over time. Mean blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine in the above-normal groups decreased significantly from 37±14 to 23±10 mg/dL (P<0.0001) and from 1.8±0.4 to 1.4±0.8 mg/dL (P<0.01), respectively. There were decreases in aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase in the above-normal groups from 121±206 and 171±348 to 36±19 and 31±22 IU (P<0.001), respectively. Total bilirubin for the above-normal group was 2.1±0.9 mg/dL at baseline; after an acute increase at week 1, it decreased to 0.9±0.5 mg/dL by 6 months (P<0.0001). Both renal and liver values from patients in the normal groups remained normal during support with the left ventricular assist device. Conclusions— The HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device improves renal and hepatic function in advanced heart failure patients who are being bridged to transplantation, without evidence of detrimental effects from reduced pulsatility over a 6-month time period. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00121472.