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 .).

The Utility of a Wireless Implantable Hemodynamic Monitoring System in Patients Requiring Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Proper timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advanced heart failure patients is not well established and is an area of intense interest. In addition, optimizing LVAD performance after implantation remains difficult and represents a significant clinical need. Implantable hemodynamic monitoring systems may provide physicians with the physiologic information necessary to improve the timing of LVAD implantation as well as LVAD performance when compared with current methods. The CardioMEMS Heart sensor Allows for Monitoirng of Pressures to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III heart failure patients (CHAMPION) Trial enrolled 550 previously hospitalized patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure. All patients were implanted with a pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring system and randomized to a treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, physicians used the hemodynamic information to make heart failure management decisions. This information was not available to physicians for the control group. During an average of 18 month randomized follow-up, 27 patients required LVAD implantation. At the time of PA pressure sensor implantation, patients ultimately requiring advanced therapy had higher PA pressures, lower systemic pressure, and similar cardiac output measurements. Treatment and control patients in the LVAD subgroup had similar clinical profiles at the time of enrollment. There was a trend toward a shorter length of time to LVAD implantation in the treatment group when hemodynamic information was available. After LVAD implantation, most treatment group patients continued to provide physicians with physiologic information from the hemodynamic monitoring system. As expected PA pressures declined significantly post LVAD implant in all patients, but the magnitude of decline was higher in patients with PA pressure monitoring. Implantable hemodynamic monitoring appeared to improve the timing of LVAD implantation as well as optimize LVAD performance when compared with current methods. Further studies are necessary to evaluate these findings in a prospective manner.

Impact of age, sex, therapeutic intent, race and severity of advanced heart failure on short-term principal outcomes in the MOMENTUM 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary outcomes analysis of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing MCS Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial short-term cohort demonstrated a higher survival rate free of debilitating stroke and reoperation to replace/remove the device (primary end-point) in patients receiving the HeartMate 3 (HM3) compared with the HeartMate (HMII). In this study we sought to evaluate the individual and interactive effects of pre-specified patient subgroups (age, sex, race, therapeutic intent [bridge to transplant/bridge to candidacy/destination therapy] and severity of illness) on primary end-point outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 patients implanted with HM3 and HMII devices. METHODS: Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze patients enrolled in the "as-treated cohort" (n = 289) of the MOMENTUM 3 trial to: (1) determine interaction of various subgroups on primary end-point outcomes; and (2) identify independent variables associated with primary end-point success. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced among HM3 (n = 151) and HMII (n = 138) cohorts. No significant interaction between the sub-groups on primary end-point outcomes was observed. Cox multivariable modeling identified age (≤65 years vs >65 years, hazard ratio 0.42 [95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.78], p = 0.006]) and pump type (HM3 vs HMII, hazard ratio 0.53 [95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.96], p = 0.034) to be independent predictors of primary outcomes success. After adjusting for age, no significant impact of sex, race, therapeutic intent and INTERMACS profiles on primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of MOMENTUM 3 suggests that younger age (≤65 years) at implant and pump choice are associated with a greater likelihood of primary end-point success. These findings further suggest that characterization of therapeutic intent into discrete bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy categories offers no clear clinical advantage, and should ideally be abandoned.

PREVENtion of HeartMate II Pump Thrombosis Through Clinical Management: The PREVENT multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Recommended structured clinical practices including implant technique, anti-coagulation strategy, and pump speed management (PREVENT [PREVENtion of HeartMate II Pump Thrombosis Through Clinical Management] recommendations) were developed to address risk of early (<3 months) pump thrombosis (PT) risk with HeartMate II (HMII; St. Jude Medical, Inc. [Thoratec Corporation], Pleasanton, CA). We prospectively assessed the HMII PT rate in the current era when participating centers adhered to the PREVENT recommendations. METHODS: PREVENT was a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, non-randomized study of 300 patients implanted with HMII at 24 participating sites. Confirmed PT (any suspected PT confirmed visually and/or adjudicated by an independent assessor) was evaluated at 3 months (primary end-point) and at 6 months after implantation. RESULTS: The population included 83% men (age 57 years ± 13), 78% destination therapy, and 83% Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profile 1-3. Primary end-point analysis showed a confirmed PT of 2.9% at 3 months and 4.8% at 6 months. Adherence to key recommendations included 78% to surgical recommendations, 95% to heparin bridging, and 79% to pump speeds ≥9,000 RPMs (92% >8,600 RPMs). Full adherence to implant techniques, heparin bridging, and pump speeds ≥9,000 RPMs resulted in a significantly lower risk of PT (1.9% vs 8.9%; p < 0.01) and lower composite risk of suspected thrombosis, hemolysis, and ischemic stroke (5.7% vs 17.7%; p < 0.01) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of all components of a structured surgical implant technique and clinical management strategy (PREVENT recommendations) is associated with low rates of confirmed PT.

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients: Results From the ROADMAP Study.

BACKGROUND: Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with noninotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD support versus optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous inotropic support. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter (N = 41), observational study of 200 patients (97 LVAD, 103 OMM). Entry criteria included ≥1 hospitalization for HF in the last 12 months and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m. The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6MWD ≥75 m at 12 months. RESULTS: LVAD patients were more severely ill, with more patients classified as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 4 (65% LVAD vs. 34% OMM; p < 0.001) than 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint (39% LVAD vs. 21% OMM; odds ratio: 2.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.8]; p = 0.012). On the basis of as-treated analysis, 12-month survival was greater for LVAD versus OMM (80 ± 4% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.022) patients. Adverse events were higher in LVAD patients, at 1.89 events/patient-year (EPPY), primarily driven by bleeding (1.22 EPPY), than with OMM, at 0.83 EPPY, primarily driven by worsening HF (0.68 EPPY). Most patients (80% LVAD vs. 62% OMM; p < 0.001) required hospitalizations. Health-related quality of life (HRQol) and depression improved from baseline more significantly with LVADs than with OMM (Δ visual analog scale: 29 ± 25 vs. 10 ± 22 [p < 0.001]; Δ Patient Health Questionnaire-9: -5 ± 7 vs. -1 ± 5 [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Survival with improved functional status was better with HMII LVAD compared with OMM. Despite experiencing more frequent adverse events, LVAD patients improved more in HRQol and depression. The results support HMII use in functionally limited, noninotrope-dependent HF patients with poor HRQoL. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device [LVAD] and Medical Management [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Risk assessment and comparative effectiveness of left ventricular assist device and medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: design and rationale of the ROADMAP clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support is now a proven therapy for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. The role for this therapy in patients with less severe heart failure is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the impact of mechanically assisted circulation using the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device in patients who meet current US Food and Drug Administration-defined criteria for treatment but are not yet receiving intravenous inotropic therapy. METHODS: This is a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial of 200 patients treated with either optimal medical management or a mechanical circulatory support device. CLINICAL CONTEXT: This trial will be the first prospective clinical evaluation comparing outcomes of patients with advanced ambulatory heart failure treated with either ongoing medical therapy or a left ventricular assist device. It is anticipated to provide novel insights regarding relative outcomes with each treatment and an understanding of patient and provider acceptance of the ventricular assist device therapy. This trial will also provide information regarding the risk of events in "stable" patients with advanced heart failure and guidance for the optimal timing of left ventricular assist device therapy.

Hyponatremia, heart failure, and the role of tolvaptan.

Hyponatremia-usually defined by serum sodium < 135 mEq/L-is common in heart failure (HF); it remains unclear whether it worsens HF or is merely a marker of more severe disease. Hyponatremia may develop from causes besides HF and symptoms may be mistakenly attributed to HF. Hyponatremia correction may be required for optimal HF management in some cases, and it can prevent neurologic complications. Symptoms, volume status, and onset timing determine treatment, which should correct serum sodium in a controlled manner. Arginine vasopressin is elevated in hypervolemic/euvolemic hyponatremia, favoring water reabsorption despite low serum osmolality. The oral selective V(2)-receptor antagonist tolvaptan blocks arginine vasopressin effects in the renal collecting ducts, promoting aquaresis without increasing sodium/potassium excretion. In clinical trials, tolvaptan significantly increased serum sodium in patients with euvolemic/hypervolemic hyponatremia, including HF. When added to conventional HF treatment, tolvaptan produced early symptomatic benefit, without long-term improvement in an HF population consisting primarily of normonatremic patients. Tolvaptan is approved for treatment of clinically significant hypervolemic/euvolemic hyponatremia (serum sodium < 125 mEq/L or less marked symptomatic hyponatremia that has resisted correction with fluid restriction), but not HF without hyponatremia.

Rationale and design of the treatment of hyponatremia based on lixivaptan in NYHA class III/IV cardiac patient evaluation (THE BALANCE) study.

Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte disorder in patients with heart failure (HF) associated with cognitive dysfunction and increased mortality and rehospitalization rates. Loop diuretics worsen renal function, produce neurohormonal activation, and induce electrolyte imbalances. Lixivaptan is a selective, oral vasopressin V(2) -receptor antagonist that improves hyponatremia by promoting electrolyte-free aquaresis without significant side effects. The Treatment of Hyponatremia Based on Lixivaptan in NYHA Class III/IV Cardiac Patient Evaluation (BALANCE) study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effects of lixivaptan on serum sodium in patients hospitalized with worsening heart failure (target N= 650), signs of congestion and serum sodium concentrations <135 mEq/L. Other endpoints include assessment of dyspnea, body weight, cognitive function, and days of hospital-free survival. Patients are randomized 1:1 to lixivaptan or matching placebo for 60 days, with a 30-day safety follow-up. Doses of lixivaptan or placebo are adjusted based on serum sodium and volume status. Lixivaptan was shown to increase serum sodium and reduce body weight, without renal dysfunction or hypokalemia. BALANCE seeks to address unmet questions regarding the use of vasopressin antagonists including their effects on cognitive function and clinical outcomes in patients with hyponatremia and worsening heart failure.

Heart failure with normal ejection fraction: consideration of mechanisms other than diastolic dysfunction.

More than half of patients with heart failure (HF) have a normal ejection fraction (EF). These patients are typically elderly, are predominantly female, and have a high incidence of multiple comorbid conditions associated with development of ventricular hypertrophy and/or interstitial fibrosis. Thus, the cause of HF has been attributed to diastolic dysfunction. However, the same comorbidities may also impact myocardial systolic, ventricular, vascular, renal, and extracardiovascular properties in ways that can also contribute to symptoms of HF by way of mechanisms not related to diastolic dysfunction. Accordingly, the descriptive term HF with normal EF has been suggested as an alternative to the mechanistic term diastolic HF. In this article, we review the current understanding of nondiastolic mechanisms that may contribute to the HF with normal EF syndrome to highlight potential pathways for research that may lead to new targets for therapy.

Mechanical circulatory support devices for acute heart failure syndromes: considerations for clinical trial design.

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are a guideline-recommended treatment option for a small subset of advanced heart failure patients. MCS has the potential to become more prominent in the management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes (AHFS) as device technology advances and as clinical trials consistently discover neutral or harmful effects with pharmacologic therapies hypothesized to be beneficial in this population. While it is now possible to identify AHFS patients who are at high risk of death, the therapeutic options available to improve their long-term outcomes are limited. MCS therapy in this population offers a "bridge to recovery" strategy; these patients may have viable myocardium that responds favorably to the influence of MCS on neurohormones, cytokines, and/or reverse remodeling. Patients at high risk for mortality who have a substantial likelihood of benefiting from MCS can be easily identified using standard clinical criteria developed from large observational databases. MCS technology is rapidly evolving, and risks related to implantation are declining. It is evident that rigorous clinical trial testing of the potential risks, benefits, and economic implications of MCS in patients with AHFS will need to be conducted before the "routine" application of this aggressive therapy. This paper examines the rationale for conducting trials of MCS devices in patients with AHFS, and it explores considerations for patient selection and appropriate endpoints. This manuscript was generated from discussions on this issue during the third international meeting of the International Working Group on AHFS held in Washington, DC, April 8-9, 2006.

Thromboembolic risk in the patient with heart failure.

Although heart failure is a procoagulant state, the incidence of arterial thromboembolism (peripheral arterial emboli and strokes) is relatively low in the outpatient setting and seems to be higher in those with concomitant atrial fibrillation or recent large anterior myocardial infarction, especially in the presence of a dyskinetic apex. Hospitalized heart failure patients, on the other hand, have an extremely high rate of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. Outpatients with heart failure should receive anticoagulation only in the presence of atrial fibrillation or if they have experienced a prior embolic event. Patients with recent large anterior infarction or recent infarction with documented thrombus should be treated with anticoagulation for the initial 3 months after the infarct, whereas those with evidence of a mural thrombus should receive anticoagulation at least until the thrombus has resolved. Heart failure patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy should receive antiplatelet agents for the prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. Antiplatelet agents should not be prescribed for heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy or without other evidence of atherosclerotic vascular disease. All hospitalized heart failure patients who are not taking oral anticoagulants should receive prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparins or factor Xa inhibitors.

Effects of cardiac resynchronization on disease progression in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and mildly symptomatic chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure have not been fully elucidated. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation II (MIRACLE ICD II) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial of CRT in NYHA class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction < or =35%, a QRS > or =130 ms, and a class I indication for an ICD. One hundred eighty-six patients were randomized: 101 to the control group (ICD activated, CRT off) and 85 to the CRT group (ICD activated, CRT on). End points included peak VO2, VE/CO2, NYHA class, quality of life, 6-minute walk distance, LV volumes and ejection fraction, and composite clinical response. Compared with the control group at 6 months, no significant improvement was noted in peak VO2, yet there were significant improvements in ventricular remodeling indexes, specifically LV diastolic and systolic volumes (P=0.04 and P=0.01, respectively), and LV ejection fraction (P=0.02). CRT patients showed statistically significant improvement in VE/CO2 (P=0.01), NYHA class (P=0.05), and clinical composite response (P=0.01). No significant differences were noted in 6-minute walk distance or quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild heart failure symptoms on optimal medical therapy with a wide QRS complex and an ICD indication, CRT did not alter exercise capacity but did result in significant improvement in cardiac structure and function and composite clinical response over 6 months.

Treatment charges and resource use among patients with heart failure enrolled in an MCO.

The purpose of this study was to determine patient-level annual expenditures and resource use for heart failure (HF) and change in annual expenditure after a hospital admission for HF. The study population comprised members of an IPA-model MCO (N = 899) who were 40 to 74 years old and continuously enrolled for at least six months before and after an index hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of HF. A retrospective analysis was conducted of administrative claims data between 1996 and 1998. Analysis was stratified by five-year age groups and by quintiles created by rank-ordering individuals according to their pre-index annualized expenditure and then dividing the cohort into five equal groups. During the year before the index HF event, median annualized charges were $6,026 (mean +/- SD, $17,490 +/- $32,234), and median postevent charges were $14,292 (mean, $35,780 +/- $60,881), a 98% increase in median (105% increase in mean). Age was unrelated to average annual expenditure or to increase in expenditure after the index event. One-year readmission rates ranged from 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-51%), for patients in the least costly quintile, to 63% for the most costly quintile (95% CI, 55%-71%). Although HF prevalence increases with age, patient-level treatment expenditures are comparable across age groups. Hospital admission for HF is associated with a substantial increase in treatment intensity and annual expenditure.