Survival after biventricular assist device implantation: an analysis of the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support database.

Patients requiring biventricular assist device (BiVAD) for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) have substantially worse outcomes than patients requiring left VAD (LVAD) support only. Patient-specific risk factors have yet to be consistently identified in a large, multicenter registry, which may underlie the poorer outcomes for BiVAD patients. The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) is a registry of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved durable MCS devices used for bridge-to-transplantation, destination therapy, or recovery. The purposes of this study were to 1) identify the underlying pre-implant characteristics of the population requiring BiVAD support that contribute to reduced survival, and 2) identify differences in postoperative outcomes with respect to adverse events compared with patients supported with LVAD alone. From June 2006 to September 2009, 1,646 patients were entered into the INTERMACS database in which adverse events and outcomes were recorded for primary implants with LVAD or BiVAD. Competing outcomes methodology was used to estimate the time-related probability of death, transplant, or recovery. Overall survival for all groups was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional regression analysis. The distribution of primary device implants included 1,440 LVADs and 206 BiVADs. BiVAD patients presented with a lower INTERMACS profile 93% in INTERMACS 1 or 2, compared with 73% for LVAD patients (p < 0.001). Survival at 6 months was 86% for LVADs and 56% for BiVADs (p < .0001). Adverse event rates, expressed as episodes/100 patient-months for the BiVAD group compared with LVAD, were significantly higher for infection (33.2 vs 14.3), bleeding (71.6 vs 15.5), neurologic events (7.9 vs 2.6), and for device failure (4.9 vs 2.0). Patients requiring BiVAD support at the time of durable MCS implant are more critically ill at the time of MCS implant. BiVAD patients experience worse survival than patients supported with LVAD alone and higher rates of serious adverse events. Characteristics of the population present at the time of BiVAD implant likely influence post-implant MCS outcomes.

Cleveland JC Jr ，Naftel DC ，Reece TB ，Murray M ，Antaki J ，Pagani FD ，Kirklin JK ... -  《-》

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 Circul

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Starling RC ，Naka Y ，Boyle AJ ，Gonzalez-Stawinski G ，John R ，Jorde U ，Russell SD ，Conte JV ，Aaronson KD ，McGee EC Jr ，Cotts WG ，DeNofrio D ，Pham DT ，Farrar DJ ，Pagani FD ... -  《-》

Predictors of death and transplant in patients with a mechanical circulatory support device: a multi-institutional study.

Holman WL ，Kormos RL ，Naftel DC ，Miller MA ，Pagani FD ，Blume E ，Cleeton T ，Koenig SC ，Edwards L ，Kirklin JK ... -  《-》

Results of the destination therapy post-food and drug administration approval study with a continuous flow left ventricular assist device: a prospective study using the INTERMACS registry (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support

A post-approval (PA) study for destination therapy (DT) was required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether results with the HeartMate (HM) II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a commercial setting were comparable to results during the DT multicenter pivotal clinical trial. New device technology developed in the clinical research setting requires validation in a real-world setting. The PA study was a prospective evaluation of the first 247 HM II patients identified pre-operatively as eligible for DT in the national INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry. Patients were enrolled from January to September 2010 at 61 U.S. centers and followed for 2 years. A historical comparison group included patients (n = 133 at 34 centers) enrolled in the primary data cohort in the DT pivotal trial (TR). Survival rates and adverse events for the PA group were obtained from the INTERMACS registry. Baseline characteristics were similar for PA versus TR. Forty-five percent of PA patients were in INTERMACS profiles 1 to 2 and 28% were in profile 3. Adverse events in the PA group were similar or lower than those in the TR group, including improvements in device-related infection (0.22 vs. 0.47) and post-operative bleeding requiring surgery (0.09 vs. 0.23) events per patient-year. Kaplan-Meier survival at 2 years was 62% (PA group) versus 58% (TR group). PA group survival at 1 and 2 years was 82 ± 5% and 69 ± 6% for INTERMACS profiles 4 to 7 (n = 63) versus 72 ± 3% and 60 ± 4% for profiles 1 to 3 (n = 184). The median length of stay after surgery was reduced by 6 days in the PA group versus the TR group. Results in a commercial patient care setting for the DT population supported the original pivotal clinical trial findings regarding the efficacy and risk profile of the HM II LVAD. Survival was best in patients who were not inotrope-dependent (INTERMACS profiles 4 to 7).

Jorde UP ，Kushwaha SS ，Tatooles AJ ，Naka Y ，Bhat G ，Long JW ，Horstmanshof DA ，Kormos RL ，Teuteberg JJ ，Slaughter MS ，Birks EJ ，Farrar DJ ，Park SJ ，HeartMate II Clinical Investigators ... -  《-》

Improved survival and decreasing incidence of adverse events with the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device as bridge-to-transplant therapy.

Pulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are effective as bridge-to-transplant therapy, but they are limited by their large size and lack of durability. Smaller, more durable, continuous flow devices such as the HeartMate II LVAD are increasingly being used. The aim of this study is to report our single-center experience with this device as bridge-to-transplant therapy. Overall, 47 patients received HeartMate II LVADs at our center from June 2005 to July 2007; 32 as bridge to transplant, 7 as destination therapy, and 8 as exchange therapy for a failed HeartMate XVE. We reviewed our experience with the device as bridge-to-transplant therapy and report on patient survival and adverse events. The mean age of the bridge-to-transplant patients was 50.75 +/- 13.78 years; 10 (31.3%) were female. The cause of the underlying disease was ischemic in 18 patients (56.3%), idiopathic in 11 (34.4%), myocarditis in 1 (3.1%), postpartum cardiomyopathy in 1 (3.1%), and congenital heart disease in 1 (3.1%). The mean duration of HeartMate II support was 193.2 +/- 139.9 days. At 30 days after HeartMate II placement, the patient survival was 96.9% by Kaplan-Meier analysis; at 6 months (alive or transplanted), 86.9%. Major adverse events included bleeding requiring reexploration in 5 patients (15.6%), right ventricular failure requiring right ventricular assist device support in 2 (6.3%), LVAD-related infections in 4 (12.5%), neurologic or thromboembolic events in 2 (6.3%), and gastrointestinal bleeding in 5 (15.6%). We noted one serious device malfunction (3.1%) resulting in the patient's death; in addition, 2 patients experienced pump thrombosis (6.3%). Despite morbidity, use of the HeartMate II LVAD as bridge-to-transplant therapy is associated with excellent survival and low mortality rates. We found a marked decrease in morbidity related to right ventricular failure, to device-related infections, and to thromboembolic events. However, the requirements for anticoagulation therapy may be associated with increased mediastinal and gastrointestinal bleeding. Strategies to optimize anticoagulation therapy may further improve results for these critically ill patients.

John R ，Kamdar F ，Liao K ，Colvin-Adams M ，Boyle A ，Joyce L ... -  《-》