William G. Cotts

Use of an Intrapericardial, Continuous-Flow, Centrifugal Pump in Patients Awaiting Heart Transplantation

Background— Contemporary ventricular assist device therapy results in a high rate of successful heart transplantation but is associated with bleeding, infections, and other complications. Further reductions in pump size, centrifugal design, and intrapericardial positioning may reduce complications and improve outcomes. Methods and Results— We studied a small, intrapericardially positioned, continuous-flow centrifugal pump in patients requiring an implanted ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation. The course of investigational pump recipients was compared with that of patients implanted contemporaneously with commercially available devices. The primary outcome, success, was defined as survival on the originally implanted device, transplantation, or explantation for ventricular recovery at 180 days and was evaluated for both noninferiority and superiority. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of survival between groups and functional and quality-of-life outcomes and adverse events in the investigational device group. A total of 140 patients received the investigational pump, and 499 patients received a commercially available pump implanted contemporaneously. Success occurred in 90.7% of investigational pump patients and 90.1% of controls, establishing the noninferiority of the investigational pump (P<0.001; 15% noninferiority margin). At 6 months, median 6-minute walk distance improved by 128.5 m, and both disease-specific and global quality-of-life scores improved significantly. Conclusions— A small, intrapericardially positioned, continuous-flow, centrifugal pump was noninferior to contemporaneously implanted, commercially available ventricular assist devices. Functional capacity and quality of life improved markedly, and the adverse event profile was favorable. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00751972.

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.

Gadolinium Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Predicts Reversible Myocardial Dysfunction and Remodeling in Patients With Heart Failure Undergoing β-Blocker Therapy

Background—In some patients with heart failure, &bgr;-blockers can improve left ventricular (LV) function and reduce morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can predict reversible myocardial dysfunction and remodeling in heart failure patients treated with &bgr;-blockers. Methods and Results—Forty-five patients with chronic heart failure underwent CMR. Contrast imaging using gadolinium was performed to obtain high-resolution spatial maps of myocardial scarring and viability. Cine imaging was performed to assess LV function and morphology and was repeated in 35 patients after 6 months of &bgr;-blockade. Gadolinium CMR demonstrated scarring in 30 of 45 patients (67%). Scarring was found in 100% of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (28 of 28) but in only 12% with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (2 of 17). In the 35 patients who were maintained on &bgr;-blockers and had a second study, there was an inverse relation between the extent of scarring at baseline and the likelihood of contractile improvement 6 months later (P <0.001). For instance, contractility improved in 56% (674 of 1207) of regions with no scarring but in only 3% with >75% scarring (8 of 232). Multivariate analysis showed that the amount of dysfunctional but viable myocardium by CMR was an independent predictor of the change in ejection fraction (P =0.01), mean wall motion score (P =0.0007), LV end-diastolic volume index (P =0.007), and LV end-systolic volume index (P ≤0.0001). Conclusions—For heart failure patients treated with &bgr;-blockers, gadolinium-enhanced CMR predicts the response in LV function and remodeling.

Gene-Expression Profiling for Rejection Surveillance after Cardiac Transplantation

BACKGROUND Endomyocardial biopsy is the standard method of monitoring for rejection in recipients of a cardiac transplant. However, this procedure is uncomfortable, and there are risks associated with it. Gene-expression profiling of peripheral-blood specimens has been shown to correlate with the results of an endomyocardial biopsy. METHODS We randomly assigned 602 patients who had undergone cardiac transplantation 6 months to 5 years previously to be monitored for rejection with the use of gene-expression profiling or with the use of routine endomyocardial biopsies, in addition to clinical and echocardiographic assessment of graft function. We performed a noninferiority comparison of the two approaches with respect to the composite primary outcome of rejection with hemodynamic compromise, graft dysfunction due to other causes, death, or retransplantation. RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 19 months, patients who were monitored with gene-expression profiling and those who underwent routine biopsies had similar 2-year cumulative rates of the composite primary outcome (14.5% and 15.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with gene-expression profiling, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.68). The 2-year rates of death from any cause were also similar in the two groups (6.3% and 5.5%, respectively; P=0.82). Patients who were monitored with the use of gene-expression profiling underwent fewer biopsies per person-year of follow-up than did patients who were monitored with the use of endomyocardial biopsies (0.5 vs. 3.0, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among selected patients who had received a cardiac transplant more than 6 months previously and who were at a low risk for rejection, a strategy of monitoring for rejection that involved gene-expression profiling, as compared with routine biopsies, was not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse outcomes and resulted in the performance of significantly fewer biopsies. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00351559.)

HeartWare ventricular assist system for bridge to transplant: Combined results of the bridge to transplant and continued access protocol trial

BACKGROUND The HeartWare Ventricular Assist System (HeartWare Inc, Framingmam, MA) is a miniaturized implantable, centrifugal design, continuous-flow blood pump. The pivotal bridge to transplant and continued access protocols trials have enrolled patients with advanced heart failure in a bridge-to-transplant indication. METHODS The primary outcome, success, was defined as survival on the originally implanted device, transplant, or explant for ventricular recovery at 180 days. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of survival, functional and quality of life outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 332 patients in the pivotal bridge to transplant and continued access protocols trial have completed their 180-day primary end-point assessment. Survival in patients receiving the HeartWare pump was 91% at 180 days and 84% at 360 days. Quality of life scores improved significantly, and adverse event rates remain low. CONCLUSIONS The use of the HeartWare pump as a bridge to transplant continues to demonstrate a high 180-day survival rate despite a low rate of transplant. Adverse event rates are similar or better than those observed in historical bridge-to-transplant trials, despite longer exposure times due to longer survival and lower transplant rates.

Interpretation of B-type natriuretic peptide in cardiac disease and other comorbid conditions

B-Type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is elevated in states of increased ventricular wall stress. BNP is most commonly used to rule out congestive heart failure (CHF) in dyspneic patients. BNP levels are influenced by age, gender and, to a surprisingly large extent, by body mass index (BMI). In addition, it can be elevated in a wide variety of clinical settings with or without CHF. BNP is elevated in other cardiac disease states such as the acute coronary syndromes, diastolic dysfunction, atrial fibrillation (AF), amyloidosis, restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM), and valvular heart disease. BNP is elevated in non-cardiac diseases such as pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, and renal failure. BNP is also elevated in the setting of critical illness such as in acute decompensated CHF (ADHF) and sepsis. This variation across clinical settings has significant implications given the increasing frequency with which BNP testing is being performed. It is important for clinicians to understand how to appropriately interpret BNP in light of the comorbidities of individual patients to maximize its clinical utility. We will review the molecular biology and physiology of natriuretic peptides as well as the relevant literature on the utilization of BNP in CHF as well as in other important clinical situations, conditions that are commonly associated with CHF and or dyspnea.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance T2 Mapping in the Monitoring and Follow-up of Acute Cardiac Transplant Rejection A Pilot Study

Background—Acute rejection is a major factor impacting survival in the first 12 months after cardiac transplantation. Transplant monitoring requires invasive techniques. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), noninvasive testing, has been used in monitoring heart transplants. Prolonged T2 relaxation has been related to transplant edema and possibly rejection. We hypothesize that prolonged T2 reflects transplant rejection and that quantitative T2 mapping will concur with the pathological and clinical findings of acute rejection. Methods and Results—Patients were recruited within the first year after transplantation. Biopsies were graded according to the International Society for Heart Lung Transplant system for cellular rejection with immunohistochemistry for humoral rejection. Rejection was also considered if patients presented with signs and symptoms of hemodynamic compromise without biopsy evidence of rejection who subsequently improved with treatment. Patients underwent a novel single-shot T2-prepared steady-state free precession 4-chamber and 3 short axis sequences and regions of interest were drawn overlying T2 maps by 2 independent blinded reviewers. A total of 74 (68 analyzable) CMRs T2 maps in 53 patients were performed. There were 4 cellular, 2 humoral, and 2 hemodynamic rejection cases. The average T2 relaxation time for grade 0R (n=46) and grade 1R (n=17) was 52.5±2.2 and 53.1±3.3 ms (mean±SD), respectively. The average T2 relaxation for grade 2R (n=3) was 59.6±3.1 ms and 3R (n=1) was 60.3 ms (all P value <0.05 compared with controls). The T2 average in humoral rejection cases (n=2) was 59.2±3.3 ms and the hemodynamic rejection (n=2) was 61.1±1.8 ms (P<0.05 versus controls). The average T2 relaxation time for all-cause rejection versus no rejection is 60.1±2.1 versus 52.8±2.7 ms (P<0.05). All rejection cases were rescanned 2.5 months after treatment and demonstrated T2 normalization with average of 51.4±1.6 ms. No difference was found in ventricular function between nonrejection and rejection patients, except in ventricular mass 107.8±10.3 versus 127.5±10.4 g (P < 0.05). Conclusions—Quantitative T2 mapping offers a novel noninvasive tool for transplant monitoring, and these initial findings suggest potential use in characterizing rejections. Given the limited numbers, a larger multi-institution study may help elucidate the benefits of T2 mapping as an adjunctive tool in routine monitoring of cardiac transplants.

Tricuspid valve repair with left ventricular assist device implantation: is it warranted?

BACKGROUND Tricuspid regurgitation is common in patients with advanced heart failure. The ideal operative strategy for managing tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is unclear. This study was designed to evaluate the effect on outcomes of concomitant tricuspid valve repair (TVR) for moderate to severe (3(+)/4(+)) TR at the time of LVAD implantation. METHODS Patients with >3(+) TR who underwent LVAD implantation from 2005 to 2009 were retrospectively evaluated. Pre-, intra- and post-operative data, including hemodynamics, inotrope requirements and end-organ function parameters, were considered. Outcomes of patients receiving TVR were compared with those who did not receive TVR (NTVR). RESULTS Seventy-two LVADs were implanted during the study period. Forty-two (58%) patients had ≥ 3(+) TR prior to LVAD implantation. Eight patients underwent TVR and 34 patients did not undergo TVR (NTVR). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or severity of TR between the two groups. The TVR group had a longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (p < 0.01) and required more blood products (p < 0.05). Higher post-operative creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) values were noted in the TVR group. One patient in the TVR group and 3 patients in the NTVR group required right-sided mechanical assistance (p = 0.6). There was no significant difference in short- or long-term mortality between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS TVR for ≥ 3(+) TR prolonged operative time and showed similar outcomes compared with LVAD implantation alone. A benefit of performing TVR was not demonstrated. As such, TVR may not be necessary at the time of LVAD implantation.

Prospective assessment of the occurrence of anemia in patients with heart failure: Results from the Study of Anemia in a Heart Failure Population (STAMINA-HFP) Registry

BACKGROUND Although a potentially important pathophysiologic factor in heart failure, the prevalence and predictors of anemia have not been well studied in unselected patients with heart failure. METHODS The Study of Anemia in a Heart Failure Population (STAMINA-HFP) Registry prospectively studied the prevalence of anemia and the relationship of hemoglobin to health-related quality of life and outcomes among patients with heart failure. A random selection algorithm was used to reduce bias during enrollment of patients seen in specialty clinics or clinics of community cardiologists with experience in heart failure. In this initial report, data on prevalence and correlates of anemia were analyzed in 1,076 of the 1,082 registry patients who had clinical characteristics and hemoglobin determined by finger-stick at baseline. RESULTS Overall (n = 1,082), the registry patients were 41% female and 73% white with a mean age (+/-SD) of 64 +/- 14 years (68 +/- 13 years in community and 57 +/- 14 years in specialty sites, P < .001). Among the 1,076 patients in the prevalence analysis, mean hemoglobin was 13.3 +/- 2.1 g/dL (median 13.2 g/dL); and anemia (defined by World Health Organization criteria) was present in 34%. Age identified patients at risk for anemia, with 40% of patients >70 years affected. CONCLUSIONS Initial results from the STAMINA-HFP Registry suggest that anemia is a common comorbidity in unselected outpatients with heart failure. Given the strong association of anemia with adverse outcomes in heart failure, this study supports further investigation concerning the importance of anemia as a therapeutic target in this condition.

Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure

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.)