Ventricular assist device using a thoracotomy-based implant technique: Multi-Center Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy (HM3 SWIFT).

OBJECTIVES: The HeartMate 3 (Abbott) left ventricular assist device provides substantial improvement in long-term morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure. The Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study compares thoracotomy-based implantation clinical outcomes with standard median sternotomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study in patients eligible for HeartMate 3 implantation with thoracotomy-based surgical technique (bilateral thoracotomy or partial upper sternotomy with left thoracotomy). The composite primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke (modified Rankin score >3), or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device, or conversion to median sternotomy at 6-months postimplant (elective transplants were treated as a success). The primary end point (noninferiority, -15% margin) was assessed with >90% power compared with a propensity score-matched cohort (ratio 1:2) derived from the Multi-Center Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 continued access protocol. RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients between December 2020 and July 2022 in the thoracotomy-based arm at 23 North American centers. Follow-up concluded in December 2022. In the Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study group, noninferiority criteria was met (absolute between-group difference, -1.2%; Farrington Manning lower 1-sided 95% CI, -9.3%; P < .0025) and event-free survival was not different (85.0% vs 86.2%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.58-2.10). Length of stay with thoracotomy-based implant was longer (median, 20 vs 17 days; P = .03). No differences were observed for blood product utilization, adverse events (including right heart failure), functional status, and quality of life between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracotomy-based implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device is noninferior to implantation via standard full sternotomy. This study supports thoracotomy-based implantation as an additional standard for surgical implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device.

Increasing Utilization of Extended Criteria Donor Hearts for Transplantation: The OCS Heart EXPAND Trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended criteria donor (ECD) hearts available with donation after brain death (DBD) are underutilized for transplantation due to limitations of cold storage. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated use of an extracorporeal perfusion system on donor heart utilization and post-transplant outcomes in ECD DBD hearts. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, multicenter study, adult heart transplant recipients received ECD hearts using an extracorporeal perfusion system if hearts met study criteria. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day survival and absence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD). Secondary outcomes were donor heart utilization rate, 30-day survival, and incidence of severe PGD. The safety outcome was the mean number of heart graft-related serious adverse events within 30 days. Additional outcomes included survival through 2 years benchmarked to concurrent nonrandomized control subjects. RESULTS: A total of 173 ECD DBD hearts were perfused; 150 (87%) were successfully transplanted; 23 (13%) did not meet study transplantation criteria. At 30 days, 92% of patients had survived and had no severe PGD. The 30-day survival was 97%, and the incidence of severe PGD was 6.7%. The mean number of heart graft-related serious adverse events within 30 days was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.11-0.23). Patient survival was 93%, 89%, and 86% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and was comparable with concurrent nonrandomized control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an extracorporeal perfusion system resulted in successfully transplanting 87% of donor hearts with excellent patient survival to 2 years post-transplant and low rates of severe PGD. The ability to safely use ECD DBD hearts could substantially increase the number of heart transplants and expand access to patients in need. (International EXPAND Heart Pivotal Trial [EXPANDHeart]; NCT02323321; Heart EXPAND Continued Access Protocol; NCT03835754).

Predictors of 5-Year Mortality in Patients Managed With a Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: In advanced heart failure patients implanted with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), it is unknown how preimplant factors and postimplant index hospitalization events influence 5-year mortality in those able to be discharged. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to identify risk predictors of mortality through 5 years among HM3 LVAD recipients conditional on discharge from index hospitalization in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial. METHODS: This analysis evaluated 485 of 515 (94%) patients discharged after implantation of the HM3 LVAD. Preimplant (baseline), implant surgery, and index hospitalization characteristics were analyzed individually, and as multivariable predictors for mortality risk through 5 years. RESULTS: Cumulative 5-year mortality in the cohort (median age: 62 years, 80% male, 65% White, 61% destination therapy due to transplant ineligibility) was 38%. Two preimplant characteristics (elevated blood urea nitrogen and prior coronary artery bypass graft or valve procedure) and 3 postimplant characteristics (hemocompatibility-related adverse events, ventricular arrhythmias, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at discharge) were predictors of 5-year mortality. In 171 of 485 patients (35.3%) without any risk predictors, 5-year mortality was reduced to 22.6% (95% CI: 15.4%-32.7%). Even among those with 1 or more predictors, mortality was <50% at 5 years (45.7% [95% CI: 39.0%-52.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival in successfully discharged HM3 LVAD recipients is largely influenced by clinical events experienced during the index surgical hospitalization in tandem with baseline factors, with mortality of <50% at 5 years. In patients without identified predictors of risk, long-term 5-year mortality is low and rivals that achieved with heart transplantation, even though most were implanted with destination therapy intent. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol, NCT02224755; MOMENTUM 3 Pivotal Cohort Extended Follow-up PAS, NCT03982979).

Intermacs quarterly report analysis to monitor longitudinal outcomes in a centrifugal flow assist device.

In June 2021, HVAD System distribution ceased due to observational data demonstrating increased mortality and neurological events compared to another commercial device, and a device malfunction with delay or failure to restart, especially in certain subpopulations. To assess ongoing risk for patients on support following subsequent device recalls, the manufacturer's Intermacs HVAD System 2022 Quarterly Reports were queried to identify mortality and adverse events trends in a contemporary cohort of 3110 primary HVAD implantations since October 2017, stratified by year-of-implant. Mean duration of support was 21 ± 16 months, with 33% alive on original device, 25% transplanted, 6% undergoing device exchange, 4% recovered, and 32% expired. Kaplan-Meier and event-per-patient-year estimates for survival, freedom from device explant, stroke, and pump thrombus were similar across year-of-implant. Following market withdrawal and recent device recalls, there appears to be no increase in mortality, stroke, pump thrombus, or explant for HVAD-supported patients. Quarterly report monitoring is ongoing.

Transplantation Outcomes with Donor Hearts after Circulatory Death.

BACKGROUND: Data showing the efficacy and safety of the transplantation of hearts obtained from donors after circulatory death as compared with hearts obtained from donors after brain death are limited. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial in which adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group). The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation; 90 (assigned to the circulatory-death group) received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 (regardless of group assignment) received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor). The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88 to 99) among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% (95% CI, 84 to 97) among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (least-squares mean difference, -3 percentage points; 90% CI, -10 to 3; P<0.001 for noninferiority [margin, 20 percentage points]). There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, risk-adjusted survival at 6 months after transplantation with a donor heart that had been reanimated and assessed with the use of extracorporeal nonischemic perfusion after circulatory death was not inferior to that after standard-care transplantation with a donor heart that had been preserved with the use of cold storage after brain death. (Funded by TransMedics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03831048.).

Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Fully Magnetically Levitated vs Axial-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices in the MOMENTUM 3 Randomized Trial.

Importance: Although durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has emerged as an important treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to pharmacological support, outcomes, including survival, beyond 2 years remain poorly characterized. Objective: To report the composite end point of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke (Modified Rankin Scale score >3) or reoperation to replace the pump 5 years after the implant in participants who received the fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 or axial-flow HeartMate II LVAD in the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial and were still receiving LVAD therapy at the 2-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study was a 5-year follow-up of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, conducted in 69 US centers, that demonstrated superiority of the centrifugal-flow LVAD to the axial-flow pump with respect to survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump at 2 years. A total of 295 patients were enrolled between June 2019 to April 2021 in the extended-phase study, with 5-year follow-up completed in September 2021. Exposures: Of 1020 patients in the investigational device exemption per-protocol population, 536 were still receiving LVAD support at 2 years, of whom 289 received the centrifugal-flow pump and 247 received the axial-flow pump. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 10 end points evaluated at 5 years in the per-protocol population, including a composite of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump between the centrifugal-flow and axial-flow pump groups and overall survival between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 477 patients (295 enrolled and 182 provided limited data) of 536 patients still receiving LVAD support at 2 years contributed to the extended-phase analysis (median age, 62 y; 86 [18%] women). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump in the centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow group was 54.0% vs 29.7% (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P < .001). Overall Kaplan-Meier survival was 58.4% in the centrifugal-flow group vs 43.7% in the axial-flow group (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.89]; P = .003). Serious adverse events of stroke, bleeding, and pump thrombosis were less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational follow-up study of patients from the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial, per-protocol analyses found that receipt of a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow LVAD vs axial-flow LVAD was associated with a better composite outcome and higher likelihood of overall survival at 5 years. These findings support the use of the fully magnetically levitated LVAD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02224755 and NCT03982979.

Outcomes in Smaller Body Size Adults After HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in patients with smaller body size after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (HM3) implantation are not well characterized. We sought to evaluate outcomes in smaller vs larger body surface area (BSA) patients in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial and its Continued Access Protocol cohort. METHODS: The analysis cohort included 1015 HM3 patients divided into 2 groups: BSA ≤1.70 m2 (small patients, n = 82) and BSA >1.70 m2 (large patients, n = 933). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or to remove a malfunctioning device. Adverse events were compared between groups. RESULTS: Smaller patients were more frequently women (56.1% vs 17.7%; P < .001) and had lower prevalence of diabetes (28.1% vs 43.9%; P = .005) and hypertension (51.2% vs 71.9%; P < .001), larger median indexed LVEDD (normalized by BSA, 40 vs 33 mm/m2; P < .001), and lower median serum creatinine concentration (1.1 vs 1.3 mg/dL; P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving the composite end point at 2 years was 77% in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.68-1.91; P = .62). Two-year adverse event rates were also similar between groups except for sepsis (6.1% vs 14.9%; P = .029) and cardiac arrhythmias (24.4% vs 35.3%; P = .005), which were higher in the larger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after HM3 implantation were comparable between small and large patients. Smaller body size should not be used to deny HM3 implantation in patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for durable mechanical circulatory support.

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.

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).

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine characteristics, outcomes, and clinical factors associated with death in patients with COVID-19 requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted. The cohort consisted of adult patients (18 years of age and older) requiring ECMO in the period from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality after ECMO initiation assessed with a time to event analysis at 90 days. Multivariable Cox proportional regression was used to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 292 patients from 17 centers comprised the study cohort. Patients were 49 (interquartile range, 39-57) years old and 81 (28%) were female. At the end of the follow-up period, 19 (6%) patients were still receiving ECMO, 25 (9%) were discontinued from ECMO but remained hospitalized, 135 (46%) were discharged or transferred alive, and 113 (39%) died during the hospitalization. The cumulative in-hospital mortality at 90 days was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36%-47%). Factors associated with in-hospital mortality were age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.61 per 10 years), renal dysfunction measured according to serum creatinine level (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ECMO placement (aHR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.01-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 necessitating ECMO support, in-hospital mortality occurred in fewer than half of the cases. ECMO might serve as a viable modality for terminally ill patients with refractory COVID-19.

Primary results of long-term outcomes in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial and continued access protocol study phase: a study of 2200 HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device implants.

AIM: The MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial established superiority of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump, over the HeartMate II axial-flow pump. We now evaluate HM3 LVAD outcomes in a single-arm prospective continuous access protocol (CAP) post-pivotal trial study. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 2200 HM3 implanted patients (515 pivotal trial and 1685 CAP patients) and compared outcomes including survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device (primary composite endpoint), overall survival and major adverse events at 2 years. The 2-year primary endpoint [76.7% vs. 74.8%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.08, P = 0.21] and overall survival (81.2% vs. 79.0%) were similar among CAP and pivotal cohorts despite sicker patients (more intra-aortic balloon pump use and INTERMACS profile 1) in CAP who were more often intended for destination therapy. Survival was similar between the CAP and pivotal trial in transplant ineligible patients (79.1% vs. 76.7%; adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16, P = 0.38). In a pooled analysis, the 2-year primary endpoint was similar between INTERMACS profiles 1-2 ('unstable' advanced heart failure), profile 3 ('stable' on inotropic therapy), and profiles 4-7 ('stable' ambulatory advanced heart failure) (75.7% vs. 77.6% vs. 72.9%, respectively). The net burden of adverse events was lower in CAP (adjusted rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98, P = 0.006), with consequent decrease in hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The primary results of accumulating HM3 LVAD experience suggest a lower adverse event burden and similar survival compared to the pivotal MOMENTUM 3 trial.

The use of enoxaparin as bridge to therapeutic INR after LVAD implantation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have been increasingly used in the treatment of end-stage heart failure. While warfarin has been uniformly recommended in the long-term as anticoagulation strategy, no clear recommendation exists for the post-operative period. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of enoxaparin in the immediate and early postoperative period after LVAD implantation. METHODS: This is a two-center, retrospective analysis of 250 consecutive patients undergoing LVAD implantation between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients were bridged postoperatively to therapeutic INR by either receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Patients were followed while inpatient and for 3 months after LVAD implantation. The efficacy outcome was occurrence of first and subsequent cerebrovascular accident while safety outcome was the occurrence of bleeding events. Length of stay (LOS) was also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty and 246 patients were analyzed for index admission and 3-month follow up respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in CVA (OR = 0.67; CI = 0.07-6.39, P = 0.73) or bleeding events (OR = 0.91; CI = 0.27-3.04, P = 0.88) during index admission. Similarly, there were no differences at 3 months in either CVAs or bleeding events (OR = 0.85; 0.31-2.34; p = 0.76). No fatal events occurred during the study follow-up period. Median LOS was significantly lower (4 days; p = 0.03) in the LMWH group. CONCLUSIONS: LMWH in the immediate and early postoperative period after LVAD implantation appears to be a concurrently safe and efficacious option allowing earlier postoperative discharge and avoidance of recurrent hospitalizations due to sub-therapeutic INR.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Transplantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Refusal of Transplantation.

Shared decision making with patients in advanced heart failure is critical when making decisions on therapies such as left ventricular assist device implantation and cardiac transplantation. We describe a case wherein the risks of coronavirus disease-2019 affected the decision of a patient regarding proceeding with cardiac transplantation. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).

Impact of left ventricular assist device implantation on mitral regurgitation: An analysis from the MOMENTUM 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation (MR) determines pathophysiology and outcome in advanced heart failure. The impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement on clinically significant MR and its contribution to long-term outcomes has been sparsely evaluated. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of clinically significant MR on patients implanted in the MOMENTUM 3 trial with either the HeartMate II (HMII) or the HeartMate 3 (HM3) at 2 years. Clinical significance was defined as moderate or severe grade MR determined by site-based echocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 927 patients with LVAD implants without a prior or concomitant mitral valve procedure, 403 (43.5%) had clinically significant MR at baseline. At 1-month of support, residual MR was present in 6.2% of patients with HM3 and 14.3% of patients with HMII (relative risk = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84; p = 0.01) with a low rate of worsening at 2 years. Residual MR at 1-month post-implant did not impact 2-year mortality for either the HM3 (hazard ratio [HR],1.41; 95% CI, 0.52-3.89; p = 0.50) or HMII (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.26; p = 0.84) LVAD. The presence or absence of baseline MR did not influence mortality (HM3 HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33; p = 0.50; HMII HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; p = 0.32), major adverse events or functional capacity. In multivariate analysis, severe baseline MR (p = 0.001), larger left ventricular dimension (p = 0.002), and implantation with the HMII instead of the HM3 LVAD (p = 0.05) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of persistent MR post-implant. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic unloading after LVAD implantation improves clinically significant MR early, sustainably, and to a greater extent with the HM3 LVAD. Neither baseline nor residual MR influence outcomes after LVAD implantation.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2019 Annual Report: The Changing Landscape of Devices and Indications.

BACKGROUND: The field of mechanical circulatory support has been impacted by the approval of new continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and changes to the United States heart allocation system. METHODS: Primary isolated continuous-flow LVAD implants in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs registry from January 2014 through September 2019 were evaluated. Survival and freedom from major adverse events were compared between axial-flow, centrifugal-flow with hybrid levitation (CF-HL), and centrifugal-flow with full magnetic levitation (CF-FML) devices. RESULTS: Of 2603 devices implanted in 2014, 1824 (70.1%) were axial flow and 1213 (46.6%) were destination therapy (DT); through September 2019, 1752 devices were implanted, but only 37 (2.1%) were axial flow and 1230 (70.2%) were DT. Implants were performed in 13,016 patients between 2014 and 2018. Patients receiving implants in 2017-2018 compared with 2014-2016 were more likely to be at Intermacs profile 1 (17.1% vs 14.3%, P < .001) and to have preimplant temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.8% vs 29.3%, P < .001). Overall survival and freedom from major adverse events were higher with CF-FML devices. In multivariable analysis of survival between CF-HL and CF-FML, device type was not a significant early hazard, but the use of CF-HL devices had a late hazard ratio for death of 3.01 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 years, centrifugal-flow LVADs have become the dominant technology and DT the most common implant strategy. While outcomes with CF-FML devices are promising, comparisons with other devices from nonrandomized registry studies should be made with caution.

Lipomatous Hypertrophy of the Interatrial Septum Manifesting as Third Degree Atrioventricular Block.

A 55-year-old patient was found to have complete heart block during preoperative assessment. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed an interatrial mass suggestive of primary cardiac tumor. Extensive evaluation including intracardiac biopsy and finally open resection revealed lipomatous hypertrophy masquerading as tumor. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).