How does age affect outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation: results from the PCHF-VAD registry.

AIMS: Use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in older patients has increased, and assessing outcomes in older LVAD recipients is important. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate associations between age and outcomes after continuous-flow LVAD (cf-LVAD) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cf-LVAD patients from the multicentre European PCHF-VAD registry were included and categorized into those <50, 50-64, and ≥65 years old. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Among secondary outcomes were heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, right ventricular (RV) failure, haemocompatibility score, bleeding events, non-fatal thromboembolic events, and device-related infections. Of 562 patients, 184 (32.7%) were <50, 305 (54.3%) were aged 50-64, whereas 73 (13.0%) were ≥65 years old. Median follow-up was 1.1 years. Patients in the oldest age group were significantly more often designated as destination therapy (DT) candidates (61%). A 10 year increase in age was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.15-1.57]), intracranial bleeding (HR 1.49, 95% CI [1.10-2.02]), and non-intracranial bleeding (HR 1.30, 95% CI [1.09-1.56]), which was confirmed by a higher mean haemocompatibility score (1.37 vs. 0.77, oldest vs. youngest groups, respectively, P = 0.033). Older patients suffered from less device-related infections requiring systemic antibiotics. No age-related differences were observed in HF-related hospitalizations, ventricular arrhythmias, pump thrombosis, non-fatal thromboembolic events, or RV failure. CONCLUSIONS: In the PCHF-VAD registry, higher age was associated with increased risk of mortality, and especially with increased risk of major bleeding, which is particularly relevant for the DT population. The risks of HF hospitalizations, pump thrombosis, ventricular arrhythmia, or RV failure were comparable. Strikingly, older patients had less device-related infections.

Sex-related differences in left ventricular assist device utilization and outcomes: results from the PCHF-VAD registry.

AIMS: Data on sex and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) utilization and outcomes have been conflicting and mostly confined to US studies incorporating older devices. This study aimed to investigate sex-related differences in LVAD utilization and outcomes in a contemporary European LVAD cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: This analysis is part of the multicentre PCHF-VAD registry studying continuous-flow LVAD patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventricular arrhythmias, right ventricular failure, bleeding, thromboembolism, and the haemocompatibility score. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess associations between sex and outcomes. Overall, 457 men (81%) and 105 women (19%) were analysed. At LVAD implant, women were more often in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 or 2 (55% vs. 41%, P = 0.009) and more often required temporary mechanical circulatory support (39% vs. 23%, P = 0.001). Mean age was comparable (52.1 vs. 53.4 years, P = 0.33), and median follow-up duration was 344 [range 147-823] days for women and 435 [range 190-816] days for men (P = 0.40). No significant sex-related differences were found in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79 for female vs. male sex, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.50-1.27]). Female LVAD patients had a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.33-0.95]) but more often experienced right ventricular failure. No significant sex-related differences were found in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary European cohort of LVAD patients, far fewer women than men underwent LVAD implantation despite similar clinical outcomes. This is important as the proportion of female LVAD patients (19%) was lower than the proportion of females with advanced HF as reported in previous studies, suggesting underutilization. Also, female patients were remarkably more often in INTERMACS profile 1 or 2, suggesting later referral for LVAD therapy. Additional research in female patients is warranted.

Impact of progressive aortic regurgitation on outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Aortic regurgitation (AR) following continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation (cf-LVAD) may adversely impact outcomes. We aimed to assess the incidence and impact of progressive AR after cf-LVAD on prognosis, biomarkers, functional capacity and echocardiographic findings. In an analysis of the PCHF-VAD database encompassing 12 European heart failure centers, patients were dichotomized according to the progression of AR following LVAD implantation. Patients with de-novo AR or AR progression (AR_1) were compared to patients without worsening AR (AR_0). Among 396 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male), 153 (39%) experienced progression of AR over a median of 1.4 years on LVAD support. Before LVAD implantation, AR_1 patients were less frequently diabetic, had lower body mass indices and higher baseline NT-proBNP values. Progressive AR did not adversely impact mortality (26% in both groups, HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.61-1.36]; P = 0.65). No intergroup variability was observed in NT-proBNP values and 6-minute walk test results at index hospitalization discharge and at 6-month follow-up. However, AR_1 patients were more likely to remain in NYHA class III and had worse right ventricular function at 6-month follow-up. Lack of aortic valve opening was related to de-novo or worsening AR (P < 0.001), irrespective of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.67). Patients commonly experience de-novo or worsening AR when exposed to continuous flow of contemporary LVADs. While reducing effective forward flow, worsening AR did not influence survival. However, less complete functional recovery and worse RV performance among AR_1 patients were observed. Lack of aortic valve opening was associated with progressive AR.

Improved survival of left ventricular assist device carriers in Europe according to implantation eras: results from the PCHF-VAD registry.

AIMS: Temporal changes in patient selection and major technological developments have occurred in the field of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), yet analyses depicting this trend are lacking for Europe. We describe the advances of European LVAD programmes from the PCHF-VAD registry across device implantation eras. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 583 patients from 13 European centres in the registry, 556 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male) were eligible for this analysis. Patients were divided into eras (E) by date of LVAD implantation: E1 from December 2006 to December 2012 (6 years), E2 from January 2013 to January 2020 (7 years). Patients implanted more recently were older with more comorbidities, but less acutely ill. Receiving an LVAD in E2 was associated with improved 1-year survival in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.98; p = 0.043). LVAD implantation in E2 was associated with a significantly lower chance of heart transplantation (adjusted HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.67; p = 0.001), and lower risk of LVAD-related infections (adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.027), both in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The adjusted risk of haemocompatibility-related events decreased (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91; p = 0.016), while heart failure-related events increased in E2 (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02-2.75; p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: In an analysis depicting the evolving landscape of continuous-flow LVAD carriers in Europe over 13 years, a trend towards better survival was seen in recent years, despite older recipients with more comorbidities, potentially attributable to increasing expertise of LVAD centres, improved patient selection and pump technology. However, a smaller chance of undergoing heart transplantation was noted in the second era, underscoring the relevance of improved outcomes on LVAD support.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices with a defibrillator component and all-cause mortality in left ventricular assist device carriers: results from the PCHF-VAD registry.

AIMS: To compare characteristics of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients receiving a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) with a defibrillator component (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillation, CIED-D) vs. those without one, and to assess whether carrying such a device contiguously with an LVAD is associated with outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 448 patients were analysed (mean age 52 ± 13 years, 82% male) in the multicentre European PCHF-VAD registry. To account for all active CIED-Ds during ongoing LVAD treatment, outcome analyses were performed by a time-varying analysis with active CIED-D status post-LVAD as the time-varying covariate. At the time of LVAD implantation, 235 patients (52%) had an active CIED-D. Median time on LVAD support was 1.1 years (interquartile range 0.5-2.0 years). A reduction of 36% in the risk of all-cause mortality was observed in patients with an active CIED-D [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.91; P = 0.012), increasing to 41% after adjustment for baseline covariates (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; P = 0.008) and 39% after propensity score adjustment (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.94; P = 0.027). Other than CIED-D, age, LVAD implant as redo surgery, number of ventricular arrhythmia episodes and use of vasopressors pre-LVAD were remaining significant risk factors of all-cause mortality. Incident ventricular arrhythmias post-LVAD portended a 2.4-fold and 2.6-fold increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively; carrying an active CIED-D remained associated with a 47% and 43% reduction in these events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis accounting for all active CIED-Ds, including those implanted during LVAD support, carrying such a device was associated with significantly better survival during LVAD support.