Intervention for critical aortic stenosis in Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome.

Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) is an ultra-rare genetic premature aging disease that is historically fatal in teenage years, secondary to severe accelerated atherosclerosis. The only approved treatment is the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib, which improves vascular structure and function, extending average untreated lifespan of 14.5 years by 4.3 years (30%). With this longer lifespan, calcific aortic stenosis (AS) was identified as an emerging critical risk factor for cardiac death in older patients. Intervention to relieve critical AS has the potential for immediate improvement in healthspan and lifespan. However, HGPS patient-device size mismatch, pervasive peripheral arterial disease, skin and bone abnormalities, and lifelong failure to thrive present unique challenges to intervention. An international group of experts in HGPS, pediatric and adult cardiology, cardiac surgery, and pediatric critical care convened to identify strategies for successful treatment. Candidate procedures were evaluated by in-depth examination of 4 cases that typify HGPS clinical pathology. Modified transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and left ventricular Apico-Aortic Conduit (AAC) placement were deemed high risk but viable options. Two cases received TAVR and 2 received AAC post-summit. Three were successful and 1 patient died perioperatively due to cardiovascular disease severity, highlighting the importance of intervention timing and comparative risk stratification. These breakthrough interventions for treating critical aortic stenosis in HGPS patients could rewrite the current clinical perspective on disease course by greatly improving late-stage quality of life and increasing lifespan. Expanding worldwide medical and surgical competency for this ultra-rare disease through expert information-sharing could have high impact on treatment success.

Assessment of Temporary Warfarin Reversal in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices: the KVAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) require interruption of warfarin for invasive procedures, but parenteral bridging is associated with many complications. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) can temporarily restore hemostasis in patients undergoing anticoagulation with warfarin. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the strategy of using variable-dose 4F-PCC to immediately and temporarily reverse warfarin before invasive procedures without holding warfarin in patients with LVADs. The duration of effect of 4F-PCC on factor levels and time to reestablish therapeutic anticoagulation post procedure were assessed. METHODS: Adult patients with LVADs and planned invasive procedures were enrolled from a single center. Warfarin was continued uninterrupted. The 4F-PCC dose administered immediately pre-procedure was based on study protocol. International normalized ratio (INR)- and vitamin K-dependent factor levels were collected before and during the 48 hours after 4F-PCC administration. The use of parenteral bridging, International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) and thromboembolic events at 7 and 30 days were collected. RESULTS: In 21 episodes of 4F-PCC reversal, median baseline INR was 2.7 (IQR 2.2-3.2). The median dosage of 4F-PCC administered was 1794 units (IQR 1536-2130). At 24 and 48 hours post 4F-PCC administration, median INRs were 1.8 (IQR 1.7-2.0) and 2.0 (IQR 1.9-2.4). Two patients required postoperative bridging. One patient experienced major bleeding within 72 hours, and 2 experienced CRNMB within 30 days. There were no thromboembolic events. Baseline and post 4F-PCC vitamin K-dependent factor levels corresponded with changes in INR values. The median time to achieve therapeutic INR post-procedure was 2.5 days (IQR, 1-4). CONCLUSION: Administration of 4F-PCC for temporary reversal of warfarin for invasive procedures in patients with LVADs allowed for continued warfarin dosing with minimal use of post-intervention bridging, limited bleeding and no thromboembolic events.

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.

Implantable Hemodynamic Monitors Improve Survival in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating implantable hemodynamic monitors to manage patients with heart failure (HF) have shown reductions in HF hospitalizations but not mortality. Prior meta-analyses assessing mortality have been limited in construct because of an absence of patient-level data, short-term follow-up duration, and evaluation across the combined spectrum of ejection fractions. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether management with implantable hemodynamic monitors reduces mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to confirm the effect of hemodynamic-monitoring guided management on HF hospitalization reduction reported in previous studies. METHODS: The patient-level pooled meta-analysis used 3 randomized studies (GUIDE-HF [Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure], CHAMPION [CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients], and LAPTOP-HF [Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring to Optimize Heart Failure Therapy]) of implantable hemodynamic monitors (2 measuring pulmonary artery pressures and 1 measuring left atrial pressure) to assess the effect on all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 1,350 patients with HFrEF were included. Hemodynamic-monitoring guided management significantly reduced overall mortality with an HR of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.99); P = 0.043. HF hospitalizations were significantly reduced with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55-0.76); P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with HFrEF using an implantable hemodynamic monitor significantly reduces both mortality and HF hospitalizations. The reduction in HF hospitalizations is seen early in the first year of monitoring and mortality benefits occur after the first year.

Patients' and physicians' beliefs and attitudes towards integrating personalized risk estimates into patient education about left ventricular assist device therapy.

BACKGROUND: Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality.

A multicenter evaluation of the HeartMate 3 risk score.

BACKGROUND: The Heartmate 3 (HM3) risk score (HM3RS) was derived and validated internally from within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial population and provides 1- and 2-year mortality risk prediction for patients in those before HM3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We aimed to evaluate the HM3RS in nontrial unselected patients, including those not meeting inclusion criteria for MOMENTUM 3 trial enrollment. METHODS: Patients who underwent HM3 LVAD implant at 1 of 7 US centers between 2017 and 2021, with at least 1-year follow-up, were included in this analysis. Patients were retrospectively assessed for their eligibility for the MOMENTUM 3 trial based on study inclusion and exclusion criteria. HM3RS risk discrimination was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for 1-year mortality for all patients and further stratified by MOMENTUM 3 trial eligibility. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed using the HM3RS-based risk categories. RESULTS: Of 521 patients included in the analysis, 266 (51.1%) would have met enrollment criteria for MOMENTUM 3. The 1- and 2-year survival for the total cohort was 85% and 81%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between those who met and did not meet enrollment criteria at 1 (87% vs 83%; p = 0.21) and 2 years postimplant (80% vs 78%; p = 0.39). For the total cohort, HM3RS predicted 1-year survival with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.69, p < 0.001). HM3RS performed better in the subset of patients meeting enrollment criteria: AUC 0.69 (95% CI:0.61-0.77, p < 0.001) compared to the subset that did not: AUC 0.58 (95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world evidence, multicenter cohort, 1- and 2-year survival after commercial HM3 LVAD implant was excellent, regardless of trial eligibility. The HM3RS provided adequate risk discrimination in "trial-like" patients, but predictive value was reduced in patients who did not meet trial criteria.

A Novel Heart Failure Diagnostic Risk Score Using a Minimally Invasive Subcutaneous Insertable Cardiac Monitor.

BACKGROUND: The authors tested the hypothesis that physiological information from sensors within a minimally invasive, subcutaneous, insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) could be used to develop an ambulatory heart failure risk score (HFRS) to accurately identify heart failure (HF) patients, across the ejection fraction spectrum, at high risk of an impending worsening heart failure event (HFE). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine performance of ICM-based, multiparameter, dynamic HFRS to predict HFEs in patients with NYHA functional class II/III HF. METHODS: In 2 observational cohorts, HF patients were implanted with an ICM; subcutaneous impedance, respiratory rate, heart rate and variability, atrial fibrillation burden, ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation, and activity duration were combined into an HFRS to identify the probability of HFE within 30 days. Patients and providers were blinded to the data. HFRS sensitivity and unexplained detection rate were defined in 2 independent patient population data sets. HFEs were defined as hospitalization, observation unit, or emergency department visit with a primary diagnosis of HF, and intravenous diuretic treatment. RESULTS: First data set (development): 42 patients had 19 HFE; second data set (validation): 94 patients had 19 HFE (mean age 66 ± 11 years, 63% men, 50% with LVEF ≥40%, 80% NYHA functional class III). Using a high-risk threshold = 7.5%, development and validation data sets: sensitivity was 73.7% and 68.4%; unexplained detection rate of 1.4 and 1.5 per patient-year; median 47 and 64 days early warning before HFE. CONCLUSIONS: ICM-HFRS provides a multiparameter, integrated diagnostic method with the ability to identify when HF patients are at increased risk of heart failure events. (Reveal LINQ Evaluation of Fluid [REEF]; NCT02275923, Reveal LINQ Heart Failure [LINQ HF]; NCT02758301, Algorithm Using LINQ Sensors for Evaluation and Treatment of Heart Failure [ALLEVIATE-HF]; NCT04452149).

A Tunable Soft Silicone Bioadhesive for Secure Anchoring of Diverse Medical Devices to Wet Biological Tissue.

Silicone is utilized widely in medical devices for its compatibility with tissues and bodily fluids, making it a versatile material for implants and wearables. To effectively bond silicone devices to biological tissues, a reliable adhesive is required to create a long-lasting interface. BioAdheSil, a silicone-based bioadhesive designed to provide robust adhesion on both sides of the interface is introduced here, facilitating bonding between dissimilar substrates, namely silicone devices and tissues. The adhesive's design focuses on two key aspects: wet tissue adhesion capability and tissue-infiltration-based long-term integration. BioAdheSil is formulated by mixing soft silicone oligomers with siloxane coupling agents and absorbents for bonding the hydrophobic silicone device to hydrophilic tissues. Incorporation of biodegradable absorbents eliminates surface water and controls porosity, while silane crosslinkers provide interfacial strength. Over time, BioAdheSil transitions from nonpermeable to permeable through enzyme degradation, creating a porous structure that facilitates cell migration and tissue integration, potentially enabling long-lasting adhesion. Experimental results demonstrate that BioAdheSil outperforms commercial adhesives and elicits no adverse response in rats. BioAdheSil offers practical utility for adhering silicone devices to wet tissues, including long-term implants and transcutaneous devices. Here, its functionality is demonstrated through applications such as tracheal stents and left ventricular assist device lines.

High Risk of Stroke in Patients With Worsening Heart Failure, Reduced Ejection Fraction, Coronary Heart Disease and Sinus Rhythm: Risk Prediction Score Analysis From the COMMANDER-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and sinus rhythm have a heightened risk of stroke. Whether anticoagulation benefits these patients is uncertain. In this post hoc analysis of the A Study to Assess the Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke in Participants with Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease Following an Episode of Decompensated Heart Failure (COMMANDER-HF) trial we evaluated how a previously validated risk model consisting of 3 variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level) would perform, compared with plasma d-dimer, for stroke prediction and estimation of the benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stroke risk and treatment effect were computed across risk score and plasma d-dimer tertiles. Risk score was available in 58% of the COMMANDER-HF population (n = 2928). Over a median follow-up of 512 days (range 342-747 days), 60 patients experienced a stroke (14.6 per 1000 patient-years). The risk model did not identify patients at higher risk of stroke and showed a low overall prognostic performance (C-index = 0.53). The effect of rivaroxaban on stroke was homogeneous across risk score tertiles (P-interaction = .67). Among patients in whom the risk score was estimated, d-dimer was available in 2343 (80%). d-dimer had an acceptable discrimination performance for stroke prediction (C-index = 0.66) and higher plasma d-dimer concentrations were associated with higher rates of stroke (ie, tertile 3 vs tertile 1, hazard ratio 3.65, 95% confidence interval 1.59-8.39, P = .002). Treatment with low-dose rivaroxaban reduced the incidence of stroke in patients at highest risk by d-dimer levels (ie, >515 ng/mL, hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.95, P-interaction = .074), without any safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, plasma d-dimer concentrations performed better than a previously described 3-variable risk score for stroke prediction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a recent clinical worsening and sinus rhythm as enrolled in the COMMANDER-HF trial. In these patients, a raised plasma d-dimer concentration identified patients who might benefit most from rivaroxaban.

Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, and PARTICIPANTS: This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS: Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.

Contemporary Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy as a Bridge or Alternative to Transplantation.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), which were introduced as a bridge to heart transplantation, are now an established alternative to heart transplantation (HT) for patients with advanced heart failure. These devices have undergone significant technological advancements over the years, and contemporary LVADs prolong life substantially in patients dependent on inotropic therapy or in those with severe ambulatory advanced heart failure with a median survival that exceeds 5 y, and most patients benefit from a doubling in functional capacity, even among those intended as destination therapy because of ineligibility for transplantation. Other intended goals for LVAD implantation consist of (1) bridge to remission or recovery and (2) bridge to transplant or candidacy for transplant. In the former situation, few selected patients underwent LVAD implantation, facilitating myocardial remission to recovery that allowed explantation. Among those bridged to transplantation, survival in the intended goal was excellent, with 80% success at 5 y (with a 50% rate of transplantation). In this review, we provide a brief historical background on the evolution of LVADs and discuss outcomes with contemporary pumps, immunological and infection-related impact of such devices, impact of bridging in HT, and use of devices for facilitating myocardial recovery and remission. Furthermore, we discuss implications of HT allocation policies, with a specific focus within the United States, and outline future perspectives and novel device in development.

Clinical Outcomes With a Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device Among Women and Men.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are underused among women with advanced heart failure, but reasons remain unclear. Outcomes in women compared with men with contemporary fully magnetically levitated LVADs remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined differences in characteristics, 2-year outcomes, and risk for key adverse events among women and men. METHODS: In 2,200 HeartMate3 (HM3) (Abbott Cardiovascular) LVAD recipients in the MOMENTUM 3 study (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3), survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning pump at 2 years was analyzed between women and men. Other outcomes included overall 2-year survival, adverse events, and functional measures. RESULTS: Women comprised 20.4% (n = 448 of 2,200) of the study population and were younger, with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and more often were Black persons compared with men. The primary endpoint (women 79.4% vs men 75.5% (adjusted [a]HR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.75-1.24]; P = 0.66) or survival at 2 years (women 82.4% vs men 80.2%; aHR: 1.06 [95% CI: 0.81-1.40]; P = 0.66) was no different. Women had an increased rate of stroke (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.09-2.11]; P = 0.012), major bleeding (aIRR: 1.28 [95% CI: 1.15-1.42]; P < 0.0001) and infection (aIRR 1.14 [95% CI: 1.03-1.55]; P = 0.01), but these differences were not seen among older (>65 years) patients. Both groups had similar gains in 6-minute walk distance and quality-of-life measurements. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the primary composite endpoint or overall survival in women compared with men at 2 years of support. Reasons underlying increase in hemocompatibility-related events and infection-related morbidity in younger women deserves further study. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE [HM3], NCT02224755; MOMENTUM 3 Continued Access Protocol [MOMENTUM 3 CAP], NCT02892955).

Outcomes of untreated subclinical antibody-mediated rejection after heart transplantation.

Subclinical antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is represented by histopathological and/or immunopathological manifestations in the absence of significant cardiac allograft dysfunction. Treatment remains uncertain as there is a lack of data on asymptomatic heart transplant (HT) recipients (HTR) with a positive cardiac biopsy. We sought to determine the impact of untreated subclinical biopsy-proven AMR, regardless of circulating donor-specific antigen (DSA) expression, when diagnosed on surveillance biopsies in the first year after HT. This retrospective case control study evaluated 260 HTR between May 2004 and February 2021. These comprised 231 controls and 29 patients with untreated subclinical AMR. The mortality event rate was higher in controls (2.63 events per 100 person-years) compared to the scAMR Group (1.71 events per 100 person-years), a difference that did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 0.66, CI: 0.18-2.36). The combined event rate of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), graft dysfunction, or mortality was higher in the subclinical AMR group (5.60 events per 100 person-years) than in controls (3.89 events per 100 person-years) but did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 1.63, CI: 0.07-40.09). Our results suggest that subclinical AMR diagnosed in the first year after HT on surveillance biopsy is not associated with decreased survival. This may sway the management of subclinical AMR towards a more conservative approach in transplant-capable institutions that currently prioritize treatment, though prospective, randomized studies of such a management strategy are required.

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).

Cardiovascular effects of rivaroxaban in heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and coronary disease with and without diabetes: a retrospective international cohort study from COMMANDER-HF.

OBJECTIVES: COMMANDER-HF was a randomised trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg two times a day to placebo, in addition to antiplatelet therapy, in patients hospitalised for worsening heart failure with coronary artery disease and sinus rhythm. Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular events and therefore have more to gain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with (n=2052) and without diabetes (n=2970). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) or ischaemic stroke. HRs and 95% CIs with interaction analyses were used to describe event-rates and treatment effects. Patients with diabetes had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities (eg, hypertension, obesity) and increased incidence of cardiovascular events. Adjusted HRs for events in people with versus without diabetes were 1.34 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.50) for the primary outcome, 1.21 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.75) for stroke, 1.51 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.99) for MI, 1.17 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.31) for heart failure hospitalisation and 1.06 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.01) for major bleeding. Rivaroxaban had no significant effect on event-rates in patients with and without diabetes (all interaction p values >0.05). Low-dose rivaroxaban was associated with an overall reduction in ischaemic stroke (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95), with no apparent subgroup interaction according to diabetes status (p-int=0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In COMMANDER-HF a diagnosis of diabetes conferred higher rates of cardiovascular events that, with exception of ischaemic stroke, was not substantially reduced by rivaroxaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced risk of ischaemic stroke for patients with and without diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01877915; Post-results.

Fallacies of Using the Win Ratio in Cardiovascular Trials: Challenges and Solutions.

The win ratio was introduced into cardiovascular trials as a potentially better way of analyzing composite endpoints to account for the hierarchy of clinical significance of their components and to facilitate the inclusion of recurrent events. The basic concept of the win ratio is to define a hierarchy of clinical importance within the components of the composite outcome, form all possible pairs by comparing every subject in the treatment group with every subject in the control group, and then evaluate each pair for the occurrence of the components of the composite outcome in descending order of importance, starting at the most important and progressing down the hierarchy if the outcome does not result in a win in either pair until pairs are tied for the outcome after exhaustion of all components. Although the win ratio offers a novel method of depiction of outcomes in clinical trials, its advantages may be counterbalanced by several fallacies (such as ignoring ties and weighting each hierarchal component equally) and challenges in appropriate clinical interpretation (establishing clinical meaningfulness of the observed effect size). From this perspective, we discuss these and other fallacies and provide a suggested framework to overcome such limitations to enhance utility of this statistical method across the clinical trial enterprise.