Clinical and economic impact of ventricular assist device infections: a real-world claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: VAD therapy has revolutionized the treatment of end-stage heart failure, but infections remain an important complication. The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical and economic impacts of VAD-specific infections. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a United States claims database identified members ≥ 18 years with a claim for a VAD implant procedure, at least 6 months of pre-implant baseline data, and 12 months of follow-up between 1 June 2016 and 31 December 2019. Cumulative incidence of infection was calculated. Infection and non-infection cohorts were compared regarding mortality, healthcare utilization, and total cost. Regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with infections and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,259 patients with a VAD implant were included, with 369 experiencing infection (12-month cumulative incidence 16.1%). Patients with infection were 2.1 times more likely to die (p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.5-2.9]). The mean 12-month total cost per US patient was $354,339 for the non-infection cohort and $397,546 for the infection cohort, a difference of $43,207 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VAD infections were associated with higher mortality, more healthcare utilization, and higher total cost. Strategies to minimize VAD-specific infections could lead to improved clinical and economic outcomes.

The Jarvik 2000 Left Ventricular Assist Device: Results of the United States Bridge to Transplant Trial.

The Jarvik 2000 bridge to transplant investigational device exemption study was a multicentered, prospective study of 150 UNOS status I patients implanted with the Jarvik 2000 between 2005 and 2012. During the study period, there were numerous modifications of the system that included converting from pin to cone bearings. Results were analyzed for three cohorts: total (n = 150), pin (n = 128), and cone (n = 22). Baseline demographics included age (52 ± 13), gender (79% male), size (BSA 1.98), and etiology (37% idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy; 43% Ischemic). Seventy percent of patients were either INTERMACS 1 or 2. The primary endpoint-defined as successful transplantation or listing at 180 days (prespecified at 65%; 95% lower CI: 57%)-was successfully achieved for the total cohort (67.3%; 95% CI: 59.5%-74.3%; p = 0.006). In subgroup analysis of the more contemporary, cone-bearing group, the primary endpoint was met in 91% (95% CI: 72%-97.5%; p = 0.001). Compared with pin patients, cone-bearing patients had less hemolysis as well as decreased end-organ dysfunction. Functional and quality of life scores improved after implantation independent type of bearing. In conclusion, despite a particularly sick patient population, the Jarvik 2000 was shown to be effective in supporting the advanced HF patient.

Circulating microRNAs in cellular and antibody-mediated heart transplant rejection.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive monitoring of heart allograft health is important to improve clinical outcomes. MicroRNAs (miRs) are promising biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and limited studies suggest they can be used to noninvasively diagnose acute heart transplant rejection. METHODS: The Genomic Research Alliance for Transplantation (GRAfT) is a multicenter prospective cohort study that phenotyped heart transplant patients from 5 mid-Atlantic centers. Patients who had no history of rejection after transplant were compared to patients with acute cellular rejection (ACR) or antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Small RNA sequencing was performed on plasma samples collected at the time of an endomyocardial biopsy. Differential miR expression was performed with adjustment for clinical covariates. Regression was used to develop miR panels with high diagnostic accuracy for ACR and AMR. These panels were then validated in independent samples from GRAfT and Stanford University. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated and area under the curve (AUC) statistics calculated. Distinct ACR and AMR clinical scores were developed to translate miR expression data for clinical use. RESULTS: The GRAfT cohort had a median age of 52 years, with 35% females and 45% Black patients. Between GRAfT and Stanford, we included 157 heart transplant patients: 108 controls and 49 with rejection (50 ACR and 38 AMR episodes). After differential miR expression and regression analysis, we identified 12 miRs that accurately discriminate ACR and 17 miRs in AMR. Independent validation of the miR panels within GRAfT led to an ACR AUC 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-0.98) and AMR AUC 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.90). The externally validated ACR AUC was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.59-0.82). We developed distinct ACR and AMR miR clinical scores (range 0-100), a score ≥ 65, identified ACR with 86% sensitivity, 76% specificity, and 98% negative predictive value, for AMR score performance was 82%, 84% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel miRs that had excellent performance to noninvasively diagnose acute rejection after heart transplantation. Once rigorously validated, the unique clinical ACR and AMR scores usher in an era whereby genomic biomarkers can be used to screen and diagnose the subtype of rejection. These novel biomarkers may potentially alleviate the need for an endomyocardial biopsy while facilitating the initiation of targeted therapy based on the noninvasive diagnosis of ACR or AMR.

Acquired platelet defects are responsible for nonsurgical bleeding in left ventricular assist device recipients.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as a standard treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure. However, these devices are prone to adverse events. Nonsurgical bleeding (NSB) is the most common complication in patients with continuous flow (CF) LVADs. The development of acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS) in CF-LVAD recipients is thought to be a key factor. However, AVWS is seen across a majority of LVAD patients, not just those with NSB. The purpose of this study was to examine the link between acquired platelet defects and NSB in CF-LVAD patients. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 62 CF-LVAD patients at pre- and 4 post-implantation timepoints. Reduced adhesion receptor expression (GPIbα and GPVI) and activation of platelets (GPIIb/IIIa activation) were used as markers for acquired platelet defects. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients experienced at least one NSB episode. Significantly higher levels of platelet activation and receptor reduction were seen in the postimplantation blood samples from bleeders compared with non-bleeders. All patients experienced the loss of high molecular weight monomers (HMWM) of von Willebrand Factor (vWF), but no difference was seen between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression showed that biomarkers for reduced platelet receptor expression (GPIbα and GPVI) and activation (GPIIb/IIIa) have more predictive power for NSB, with the area under curve (AUC) values of 0.72, 0.68, and 0.62, respectively, than the loss of HMWM of vWF (AUC: 0.57). CONCLUSION: The data from this study indicated that the severity of acquired platelet defects has a direct link to NSB in CF-LVAD recipients.

Global best practices consensus: Long-term management of patients with hybrid centrifugal flow left ventricular assist device support.

OBJECTIVES: Six months after withdrawal of the HeartWare HVAD System (HVAD; Medtronic) from sale, approximately 4000 patients continue ongoing support with this device. In light of the diminishing experience, this global consensus document summarizes key management recommendations. METHODS: International experts with experience in the management of patients with ongoing HVAD support were invited to summarize key aspects of patient and pump management and highlight differences in the current HeartMate 3 (Abbott Laboratories) ventricular assist device. Clinicians from high-implanting HVAD sites reviewed current literature and reported experience to generate a consensus statement. RESULTS: Specific guidelines to assist in the management of ongoing HVAD patients are developed. Key management protocols and helpful techniques developed from experienced clinicians are combined into a short guideline document. As experience with HeartMate 3 increases, key differences in approach to management are highlighted, where appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: With decreasing worldwide experience in the ongoing management of HVAD-supported patients, this consensus guideline provides a summary of best practice techniques from international centers. Differences in HeartMate 3 management are highlighted.

HVAD to HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device exchange: Best practices recommendations.

The HeartWare HVAD System (Medtronic) is a durable implantable left ventricular assist device that has been implanted in approximately 20,000 patients worldwide for bridge to transplant and destination therapy indications. In December 2020, Medtronic issued an Urgent Medical Device Communication informing clinicians of a critical device malfunction in which the HVAD may experience a delay or failure to restart after elective or accidental discontinuation of pump operation. Moreover, evolving retrospective comparative effectiveness studies of patients supported with the HVAD demonstrated a significantly higher risk of stroke and all-cause mortality when compared with a newer generation of a commercially available durable left ventricular assist device. Considering the totality of this new information on HVAD performance and the availability of an alternate commercially available device, Medtronic halted the sale and distribution of the HVAD System in June 2021. The decision to remove the HVAD from commercial distribution now requires the use of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist system (Abbott, Inc) if a patient previously implanted with an HVAD requires a pump exchange. The goal of this document is to review important differences in the design of the HVAD and HeartMate 3 that are relevant to the medical management of patients supported with these devices, and to assess the technical aspects of an HVAD-to-HeartMate 3 exchange. This document provides the best available evidence that supports best practices. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;-:1-8).

HVAD to HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device exchange: Best practices recommendations.

The HeartWare HVAD System (Medtronic) is a durable implantable left ventricular assist device that has been implanted in approximately 20,000 patients worldwide for bridge to transplant and destination therapy indications. In December 2020, Medtronic issued an Urgent Medical Device Communication informing clinicians of a critical device malfunction in which the HVAD may experience a delay or failure to restart after elective or accidental discontinuation of pump operation. Moreover, evolving retrospective comparative effectiveness studies of patients supported with the HVAD demonstrated a significantly higher risk of stroke and all-cause mortality when compared with a newer generation of a commercially available durable left ventricular assist device. Considering the totality of this new information on HVAD performance and the availability of an alternate commercially available device, Medtronic halted the sale and distribution of the HVAD System in June 2021. The decision to remove the HVAD from commercial distribution now requires the use of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist system (Abbott, Inc) if a patient previously implanted with an HVAD requires a pump exchange. The goal of this document is to review important differences in the design of the HVAD and HeartMate 3 that are relevant to the medical management of patients supported with these devices, and to assess the technical aspects of an HVAD-to-HeartMate 3 exchange. This document provides the best available evidence that supports best practices.

HVAD to HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device Exchange: Best Practices Recommendations.

The HeartWare HVAD System (Medtronic) is a durable implantable left ventricular assist device that has been implanted in approximately 20,000 patients worldwide for bridge to transplant and destination therapy indications. In December 2020, Medtronic issued an Urgent Medical Device Communication informing clinicians of a critical device malfunction in which the HVAD may experience a delay or failure to restart after elective or accidental discontinuation of pump operation. Moreover, evolving retrospective comparative effectiveness studies of patients supported with the HVAD demonstrated a significantly higher risk of stroke and all-cause mortality when compared with a newer generation of a commercially available durable left ventricular assist device. Considering the totality of this new information on HVAD performance and the availability of an alternate commercially available device, Medtronic halted the sale and distribution of the HVAD System in June 2021. The decision to remove the HVAD from commercial distribution now requires the use of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist system (Abbott, Inc) if a patient previously implanted with an HVAD requires a pump exchange. The goal of this document is to review important differences in the design of the HVAD and HeartMate 3 that are relevant to the medical management of patients supported with these devices, and to assess the technical aspects of an HVAD-to-HeartMate 3 exchange. This document provides the best available evidence that supports best practices.

Higher levels of allograft injury in black patients early after heart transplantation.

Black patients suffer higher rates of antibody-mediated rejection and have worse long-term graft survival after heart transplantation. Donor-derived cell free DNA (ddcfDNA) is released into the blood following allograft injury. This study analyzed %ddcfDNA in 63 heart transplant recipients categorized by Black and non-Black race, during the first 200 days after transplant. Immediately after transplant, %ddcfDNA was higher for Black patients (mean [SE]: 8.3% [1.3%] vs 3.2% [1.2%], p = 0.001). In the first week post-transplant, the rate of decay in %ddcfDNA was similar (0.7% [0.68] vs 0.7% [0.11], p = 0.78), and values declined in both groups to a comparable plateau at 7 days post-transplant (0.46% [0.03] vs 0.45% [0.04], p = 0.78). The proportion of Black patients experiencing AMR was higher than non-Black patients (21% vs 9% [hazard ratio of 2.61 [95% confidence interval: 0.651-10.43], p = 0.18). Black patients were more likely to receive a race mismatched organ than non-Black patients (69% vs 35%, p = 0.01), which may explain the higher levels of early allograft injury.

Comparison of two individualized antithrombotic protocols in HeartWare HVAD recipients.

We previously reported low rates of pump thrombosis and hemorrhagic stroke, but increased bleeding, under our original antithrombosis protocol (P1) in HeartWare recipients. We designed and implemented a revised protocol (P2) to reduce complexity and bleeding. Thrombelastography and PFA-100 guide antiplatelet titration. Goals for P2 were altered to decrease antiplatelet use and anticoagulation intensity. We compared the incidence and rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), embolic (eCVA) and hemorrhagic (hCVA) stroke, pump thrombosis (PT), and total bleeding (GIB+hCVA), total thrombosis (eCVA+PT), and total events between P1 and P2. Laboratory and medication data were assessed. Patients with and without hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) were compared. The study included 123 patients (P1: 65; P2: 58). GIB rate decreased (P1: 0.66; P2 0.30 EPPY, P = .003). CVA rates and incidence were statistically similar, although hCVA incidence increased (P1: 3%; P2: 12%, P = .06). Incidence (P1: 3%; P2: 16%, P = .02) and rate (P1: 0.03; P2: 0.12 EPPY, P = .08) of PT increased. Incidence and rate of overall HRAEs and thrombotic events were similar, while bleeding rate decreased (P1: 0.69; P2: 0.40 EPPY, P = .02). Twelve-month medication burden decreased. Compared to non-HRAE patients, patients with bleeding HRAEs had more antiplatelet and pentoxifylline use, but less statin use; and lower PFAs. Patients with thrombotic HRAEs had less dual antiplatelet use, lower INRs, R-times, and PFA-ADP values. A revised antithrombotic protocol decreased GIB and overall hemorrhagic HRAE rate and medication burden. Unfortunately, PT increased. Non-HRAE and HRAE patients differed in anticoagulation and antiplatelet intensity. These differences will guide the revision of P2.

Time in Therapeutic Range Significantly Impacts Survival and Adverse Events in Destination Therapy Patients.

The study aim was to examine the impact time in therapeutic range (TTR, International Normalized Ratio [INR] 2.0-3.0) has on survival and adverse events in patients receiving the HeartWare HVAD System in the ENDURANCE and ENDURANCE Supplemental Trials. Evaluable subjects (n = 495) had >1 INR value recorded 1-24 months postimplant and were categorized as: low TTR (10-39%), moderate TTR (40-69%), and high TTR (≥70%). Baseline characteristics, adverse events, and survival were analyzed. Low TTR patients experienced higher rates of major bleeding (1.69 vs. 0.54 events per patient year [EPPY]; p < 0.001), GI bleeding (1.22 vs. 0.38 EPPY; p < 0.001), stroke (0.47 vs. 0.17 EPPY; p < 0.001), thrombus requiring exchange (0.05 vs. 0.01 EPPY; p = 0.02), infection (1.44 vs. 0.69 EPPY; p < 0.001), and renal dysfunction (0.23 vs. 0.05 EPPY; p < 0.001) compared with high TTR. Moderate TTR had higher rates of major bleeding (0.75 vs. 0.54 EPPY; p < 0.001), thrombus requiring exchange (0.05 vs. 0.01 EPPY; p = 0.007), cardiac arrhythmia (0.32 vs. 0.24 EPPY; p = 0.04), and infection (0.90 vs. 0.69 EPPY; p = 0.001) compared with high TTR. Two year survival was greater among moderate and high versus low cohorts (Log-rank p = 0.001). The significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in destination therapy (DT) HVAD patients with well-controlled TTR (≥70%) emphasizes the importance of vigilant anticoagulation management.

Inflow Cannula Position Influences Improvement in Mitral Regurgitation After Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of cannula position on improvement of preexisting MR has yet to be evaluated. Consecutive patients who underwent centrifugal LVAD implantation with >mild preoperative MR and without concomitant mitral repair were reviewed. Left ventricular assist device position was determined by the angle between actual and ideal inflow cannula on computed tomography. The magnitudes of angles (anterior and lateral angle) were added to form an LVAD position assessment (LVADpa). Mitral regurgitation was numerically classified, and improvement in MR was determined by difference in MR preoperatively to MR >1 month postoperatively with a median of 162 (interquartile range: 78-218) days. The primary analysis examined the relationship between LVADpa and postoperative MR. Forty-one patients were identified with >mild preoperative functional MR. Mean age was 51 ± 13 years with an ejection fraction of 16 ± 4%. Overall, MR improved from moderate-severe preoperatively to mild postoperatively (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, higher LVADpa deviation was associated with greater postoperative MR (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29, p = 0.005) and higher 1-month pulsatility index was associated with lower postoperative MR (OR = 0.47, p = 0.011). Inflow cannula position during centrifugal LVAD implantation is an important determinant of postoperative MR.

Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Insertion Facilitates Subsequent Heart Transplant.

OBJECTIVE: We have observed that minimally invasive left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion leads to more facile re-entry and easier cardiac transplantation. We hypothesize minimally invasive LVAD implantation results in improved outcomes at the time of subsequent heart transplant. METHODS: All adults undergoing cardiac transplantation between October 2015 and March 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Those bridged to transplantation with a HeartWare HVAD were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based upon the surgical approach: those who underwent HVAD placement by conventional sternotomy versus minimally invasive insertion via lateral thoracotomy and hemisternotomy (LTHS). Patient demographics, as well as perioperative transplant outcomes, including survival, length of stay (LOS), blood utilization, ischemic time, bypass time, and postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were bridged to heart transplant with a HVAD implanted via either sternotomy (n = 22) or LTHS technique (n = 20). Demographics were similar between groups. There was 1 predischarge death in the sternotomy group and none in the LTHS group. Body surface area, cardiopulmonary bypass time, ischemic time, ECMO utilization, and reoperation for bleeding were similar. Red blood cell units transfused were significantly lower in the LTHS cohort (3.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 6.0 [2.5-10.0] P = 0.046). The LTHS cohort had a significantly shorter hospital LOS (12.0 [11.0-28.0] vs 22.5 [15.7-41.7] P = 0.022) with a trend toward shorter intensive care unit LOS (6.0 [5.0-10.5] vs 11.0 [6.0-21.5] days P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive HVAD implantation improves outcomes at subsequent heart transplantation, resulting in shorter LOS and less red cell transfusion. Larger multi-institutional studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Cell-Free DNA to Detect Heart Allograft Acute Rejection.

BACKGROUND: After heart transplantation, endomyocardial biopsy (EMBx) is used to monitor for acute rejection (AR). Unfortunately, EMBx is invasive, and its conventional histological interpretation has limitations. This is a validation study to assess the performance of a sensitive blood biomarker-percent donor-derived cell-free DNA (%ddcfDNA)-for detection of AR in cardiac transplant recipients. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective cohort study recruited heart transplant subjects and collected plasma samples contemporaneously with EMBx for %ddcfDNA measurement by shotgun sequencing. Histopathology data were collected to define AR, its 2 phenotypes (acute cellular rejection [ACR] and antibody-mediated rejection [AMR]), and controls without rejection. The primary analysis was to compare %ddcfDNA levels (median and interquartile range [IQR]) for AR, AMR, and ACR with controls and to determine %ddcfDNA test characteristics using receiver-operator characteristics analysis. RESULTS: The study included 171 subjects with median posttransplant follow-up of 17.7 months (IQR, 12.1-23.6), with 1392 EMBx, and 1834 %ddcfDNA measures available for analysis. Median %ddcfDNA levels decayed after surgery to 0.13% (IQR, 0.03%-0.21%) by 28 days. Also, %ddcfDNA increased again with AR compared with control values (0.38% [IQR, 0.31-0.83%], versus 0.03% [IQR, 0.01-0.14%]; P<0.001). The rise was detected 0.5 and 3.2 months before histopathologic diagnosis of ACR and AMR. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for AR was 0.92. A 0.25%ddcfDNA threshold had a negative predictive value for AR of 99% and would have safely eliminated 81% of EMBx. In addition, %ddcfDNA showed distinctive characteristics comparing AMR with ACR, including 5-fold higher levels (AMR ≥2, 1.68% [IQR, 0.49-2.79%] versus ACR grade ≥2R, 0.34% [IQR, 0.28-0.72%]), higher area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (0.95 versus 0.85), higher guanosine-cytosine content, and higher percentage of short ddcfDNA fragments. CONCLUSIONS: We found that %ddcfDNA detected AR with a high area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and negative predictive value. Monitoring with ddcfDNA demonstrated excellent performance characteristics for both ACR and AMR and led to earlier detection than the EMBx-based monitoring. This study supports the use of %ddcfDNA to monitor for AR in patients with heart transplant and paves the way for a clinical utility study. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02423070.

A Minimally Invasive Approach to Left Ventricular Assist Device Insertion Facilitates Subsequent Explant.

A minimally invasive approach to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion may benefit patients at the time of implant, but whether the approach to LVAD insertion influences the outcome of subsequent cardiovascular reoperations is unknown. Here we present the case of a 50-year-old male who underwent LVAD insertion through a minimally invasive approach and subsequently had left ventricular recovery. LVAD explant was performed without the use of any blood products or inotropic support. This case demonstrates that a minimally invasive approach to LVAD insertion may also facilitate subsequent device explant.

Outcomes with temporary mechanical circulatory support before minimally invasive centrifugal left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved survival and morbidity after durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD), outcomes for cardiogenic shock patients are suboptimal. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can permit optimization before dLVAD. Excellent outcomes have been observed using minimally-invasive dLVAD implantation. However, some feel tMCS contraindicates this approach. To evaluate whether left thoracotomy/hemisternotomy (LTHS) dLVAD placement is safe in this setting, we compared patients who did and did not require tMCS. METHODS: Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among those bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily Intermacs 3 (56%), while IABP recipients were mainly Intermacs 2 (45%). All patients with ECMO were Intermacs 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant procedures and red-cell transfusions in patients with ECMO. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and 12-month survival were: no tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%; and ECMO: 81%, 81% (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cardiogenic shock can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.