Stuart D. Russell

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.)

Intracoronary cardiosphere-derived cells for heart regeneration after myocardial infarction (CADUCEUS): a prospective, randomised phase 1 trial

BACKGROUND Cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs) reduce scarring after myocardial infarction, increase viable myocardium, and boost cardiac function in preclinical models. We aimed to assess safety of such an approach in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. METHODS In the prospective, randomised CArdiosphere-Derived aUtologous stem CElls to reverse ventricUlar dySfunction (CADUCEUS) trial, we enrolled patients 2-4 weeks after myocardial infarction (with left ventricular ejection fraction of 25-45%) at two medical centres in the USA. An independent data coordinating centre randomly allocated patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive CDCs or standard care. For patients assigned to receive CDCs, autologous cells grown from endomyocardial biopsy specimens were infused into the infarct-related artery 1·5-3 months after myocardial infarction. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients at 6 months who died due to ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or sudden unexpected death, or had myocardial infarction after cell infusion, new cardiac tumour formation on MRI, or a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; composite of death and hospital admission for heart failure or non-fatal recurrent myocardial infarction). We also assessed preliminary efficacy endpoints on MRI by 6 months. Data analysers were masked to group assignment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00893360. FINDINGS Between May 5, 2009, and Dec 16, 2010, we randomly allocated 31 eligible participants of whom 25 were included in a per-protocol analysis (17 to CDC group and eight to standard of care). Mean baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 39% (SD 12) and scar occupied 24% (10) of left ventricular mass. Biopsy samples yielded prescribed cell doses within 36 days (SD 6). No complications were reported within 24 h of CDC infusion. By 6 months, no patients had died, developed cardiac tumours, or MACE in either group. Four patients (24%) in the CDC group had serious adverse events compared with one control (13%; p=1·00). Compared with controls at 6 months, MRI analysis of patients treated with CDCs showed reductions in scar mass (p=0·001), increases in viable heart mass (p=0·01) and regional contractility (p=0·02), and regional systolic wall thickening (p=0·015). However, changes in end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF did not differ between groups by 6 months. INTERPRETATION We show intracoronary infusion of autologous CDCs after myocardial infarction is safe, warranting the expansion of such therapy to phase 2 study. The unprecedented increases we noted in viable myocardium, which are consistent with therapeutic regeneration, merit further assessment of clinical outcomes. FUNDING US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Heart Stem Cell Center.

Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness

CONTEXT Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been used to guide therapy in multiple settings, but recent studies have raised concerns that PACs may lead to increased mortality in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE To determine whether PAC use is safe and improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with severe symptomatic and recurrent heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) was a randomized controlled trial of 433 patients at 26 sites conducted from January 18, 2000, to November 17, 2003. Patients were assigned to receive therapy guided by clinical assessment and a PAC or clinical assessment alone. The target in both groups was resolution of clinical congestion, with additional PAC targets of a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg and a right atrial pressure of 8 mm Hg. Medications were not specified, but inotrope use was explicitly discouraged. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was days alive out of the hospital during the first 6 months, with secondary end points of exercise, quality of life, biochemical, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS Severity of illness was reflected by the following values: average left ventricular ejection fraction, 19%; systolic blood pressure, 106 mm Hg; sodium level, 137 mEq/L; urea nitrogen, 35 mg/dL (12.40 mmol/L); and creatinine, 1.5 mg/dL (132.6 micromol/L). Therapy in both groups led to substantial reduction in symptoms, jugular venous pressure, and edema. Use of the PAC did not significantly affect the primary end point of days alive and out of the hospital during the first 6 months (133 days vs 135 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.82-1.21]; P = .99), mortality (43 patients [10%] vs 38 patients [9%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.78-2.03]; P = .35), or the number of days hospitalized (8.7 vs 8.3; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86-1.27]; P = .67). In-hospital adverse events were more common among patients in the PAC group (47 [21.9%] vs 25 [11.5%]; P = .04). There were no deaths related to PAC use, and no difference for in-hospital plus 30-day mortality (10 [4.7%] vs 11 [5.0%]; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .97). Exercise and quality of life end points improved in both groups with a trend toward greater improvement with the PAC, which reached significance for the time trade-off at all time points after randomization. CONCLUSIONS Therapy to reduce volume overload during hospitalization for heart failure led to marked improvement in signs and symptoms of elevated filling pressures with or without the PAC. Addition of the PAC to careful clinical assessment increased anticipated adverse events, but did not affect overall mortality and hospitalization. Future trials should test noninvasive assessments with specific treatment strategies that could be used to better tailor therapy for both survival time and survival quality as valued by patients.

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).

The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: Executive summary

Institutional Affiliations Co-chairs Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Georgia Institute of Technology and Morehouse School of Medicine; Pamboukian SV: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Teuteberg JJ: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Task force chairs Birks E: University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; Lietz K: Loyola University, Chicago, Maywood, Illinois; Moore SA: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Morgan JA: Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Contributing writers Arabia F: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Bauman ME: University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada; Buchholz HW: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital and Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Deng M: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Dickstein ML: Columbia University, New York, New York; El-Banayosy A: Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Elliot T: Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia; Goldstein DJ: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; Grady KL: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Jones K: Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Hryniewicz K: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; John R: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Kaan A: St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Kusne S: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Loebe M: Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas; Massicotte P: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Moazami N: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mohacsi P: University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; Mooney M: Sentara Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Nelson T: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Pagani F: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Perry W: Integris Baptist Health Care, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Potapov EV: Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Rame JE: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Russell SD: Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland; Sorensen EN: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Sun B: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Strueber M: Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany Independent reviewers Mangi AA: Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Petty MG: University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

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.

Impaired Chronotropic and Vasodilator Reserves Limit Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure and a Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background— Nearly half of patients with heart failure have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Symptoms of exercise intolerance and dyspnea are most often attributed to diastolic dysfunction; however, impaired systolic and/or arterial vasodilator reserve under stress could also play an important role. Methods and Results— Patients with HFpEF (n=17) and control subjects without heart failure (n=19) generally matched for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy underwent maximal-effort upright cycle ergometry with radionuclide ventriculography to determine rest and exercise cardiovascular function. Resting cardiovascular function was similar between the 2 groups. Both had limited exercise capacity, but this was more profoundly reduced in HFpEF patients (exercise duration 180±71 versus 455±184 seconds; peak oxygen consumption 9.0±3.4 versus 14.4±3.4 mL · kg−1 · min−1; both P<0.001). At matched low-level workload, HFpEF subjects displayed ≈40% less of an increase in heart rate and cardiac output and less systemic vasodilation (all P<0.05) despite a similar rise in end-diastolic volume, stroke volume, and contractility. Heart rate recovery after exercise was also significantly delayed in HFpEF patients. Exercise capacity correlated with the change in cardiac output, heart rate, and vascular resistance but not end-diastolic volume or stroke volume. Lung blood volume and plasma norepinephrine levels rose similarly with exercise in both groups. Conclusions— HFpEF patients have reduced chronotropic, vasodilator, and cardiac output reserve during exercise compared with matched subjects with hypertensive cardiac hypertrophy. These limitations cannot be ascribed to diastolic abnormalities per se and may provide novel therapeutic targets for interventions to improve exercise capacity in this disorder.

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.

Consensus Conference Report Maximizing Use of Organs Recovered From the Cadaver Donor: Cardiac Recommendations: March 28–29, 2001, Crystal City, Va

The shortage of available donor hearts continues to limit cardiac transplantation. For this reason, strict criteria have limited the number of patients placed on the US waiting list to ≈6000 to 8000 per year. Because the number of available donor hearts has not increased beyond ≈2500 per year, the transplant waiting list mortality rate remains substantial. Suboptimal and variable utilization of donor hearts has compounded the problem in the United States. In 1999, the average donor yield from 55 US regions was 39%, ranging from 19% to 62%. This report provides the detailed cardiac recommendations from the conference on “Maximizing Use of Organs Recovered From the Cadaver Donor” held March 28 to 29, 2001, in Crystal City, Va. The specific objective of the report is to provide recommendations to improve the evaluation and successful utilization of potential cardiac donors. The report describes the accuracy of current techniques such as echocardiography in the assessment of donor heart function before recove...The shortage of available donor hearts continues to limit cardiac transplantation. For this reason, strict criteria have limited the number of patients placed on the US waiting list to 6000 to 8000 per year. Because the number of available donor hearts has not increased beyond 2500 per year, the transplant waiting list mortality rate remains substantial. Suboptimal and variable utilization of donor hearts has compounded the problem in the United States. In 1999, the average donor yield from 55 US regions was 39%, ranging from 19% to 62%. This report provides the detailed cardiac recommendations from the conference on “Maximizing Use of Organs Recovered From the Cadaver Donor” held March 28 to 29, 2001, in Crystal City, Va. The specific objective of the report is to provide recommendations to improve the evaluation and successful utilization of potential cardiac donors. The report describes the accuracy of current techniques such as echocardiography in the assessment of donor heart function before recovery and the impact of these data on donor yield. The rationale for and specific details of a donor-management pathway that uses pulmonary artery catheterization and hormonal resuscitation are provided. Administrative recommendations such as enhanced communication strategies among transplant centers and organ-procurement organizations, financial incentives for organ recovery, and expansion of donor database fields for research are also described. (Circulation. 2002;106:836-841.)