Early vs. Delayed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) utilization for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), data regarding efficacy and optimal timing for tMCS support are limited. This study aimed to describe outcomes based on tMCS timing in AMI-CS and to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and readmission. METHODS: Patients with AMI-CS identified in the National Readmissions Database were grouped according to the use of tMCS and early (<24 hours) vs. delayed (≥24 hours) tMCS. The correlation between tMCS timing and inpatient outcomes was evaluated using linear regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with 30-day mortality and readmission. RESULTS: Of 294,839 patients with AMI-CS, 109,148 patients were supported with tMCS (8,067 veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 33,577 Impella, and 79,161 intra-aortic balloon pump). Of patients requiring tMCS, patients who received early tMCS (n = 79,906) had shorter lengths of stay (7 days vs. 15 days, p < 0.001) and lower rates of ischemic and bleeding complications than those with delayed tMCS (n = 32,241). Patients requiring tMCS had higher in-hospital mortality (OR [95% CI]) (1.7 [1.7-1.8], p < 0.001). Among patients requiring tMCS, early support was associated with fewer complications, lower mortality (0.90 [0.85-0.94], p < 0.001), and fewer 30-day readmissions (0.91 [0.85-0.97], p = 0.005) compared to patients with delayed tMCS. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving tMCS for AMI-CS, early tMCS was associated with fewer complications, shorter lengths of stay, lower hospital costs, and fewer deaths and readmissions at 30 days.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Bridge to Weight Loss: A Case Series.

Durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are a well-established therapeutic option for patients with advanced heart failure. These devices are often used to "bridge" patients to an orthotopic heart transplantation (HT). Unfortunately, many patients on LVAD support with a body mass index (BMI) above a certain value are not eligible for HT due a lack of suitable donors and the association between obesity and poor outcomes after HT. This case series describes three individuals on LVAD support who were able to successfully lose enough weight to qualify to be listed for an HT. We highlight a systematic, multidisciplinary approach to implementing guideline-driven weight loss strategies, including some aggressive methods (ie, meal replacements, weight loss medications, and bariatric surgery). In addition to describing the weight loss outcomes, we also discuss barriers and medical challenges during weight loss that are unique to this population.

Machine Learning Multicenter Risk Model to Predict Right Ventricular Failure After Mechanical Circulatory Support: The STOP-RVF Score.

Importance: The existing models predicting right ventricular failure (RVF) after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support might be limited, partly due to lack of external validation, marginal predictive power, and absence of intraoperative characteristics. Objective: To derive and validate a risk model to predict RVF after LVAD implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a hybrid prospective-retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted from April 2008 to July 2019 of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) requiring continuous-flow LVAD. The derivation cohort included patients enrolled at 5 institutions. The external validation cohort included patients enrolled at a sixth institution within the same period. Study data were analyzed October 2022 to August 2023. Exposures: Study participants underwent chronic continuous-flow LVAD support. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was RVF incidence, defined as the need for RV assist device or intravenous inotropes for greater than 14 days. Bootstrap imputation and adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator variable selection techniques were used to derive a predictive model. An RVF risk calculator (STOP-RVF) was then developed and subsequently externally validated, which can provide personalized quantification of the risk for LVAD candidates. Its predictive accuracy was compared with previously published RVF scores. Results: The derivation cohort included 798 patients (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [13.2] years; 668 male [83.7%]). The external validation cohort included 327 patients. RVF developed in 193 of 798 patients (24.2%) in the derivation cohort and 107 of 327 patients (32.7%) in the validation cohort. Preimplant variables associated with postoperative RVF included nonischemic cardiomyopathy, intra-aortic balloon pump, microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device/venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD configuration, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 1 to 2, right atrial/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, platelet count, and serum sodium, albumin, and creatinine levels. Inclusion of intraoperative characteristics did not improve model performance. The calculator achieved a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the derivation cohort and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) in the validation cohort. Cumulative survival was higher in patients composing the low-risk group (estimated <20% RVF risk) compared with those in the higher-risk groups. The STOP-RVF risk calculator exhibited a significantly better performance than commonly used risk scores proposed by Kormos et al (C statistic, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) and Drakos et al (C statistic, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.57-0.67). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementing routine clinical data, this multicenter cohort study derived and validated the STOP-RVF calculator as a personalized risk assessment tool for the prediction of RVF and RVF-associated all-cause mortality.

Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: An ISHLT consensus conference content summary.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Consensus statements from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus conference: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

The last decade has brought tremendous interest in the problem of cardiogenic shock. However, the mortality rate of this syndrome approaches 50%, and other than prompt myocardial revascularization, there have been no treatments proven to improve the survival of these patients. The bulk of studies have been in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and there is little evidence to guide the clinician in those patients with heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals) with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. This consensus report summarizes the results of a premeeting survey answered by participants and the breakout sessions where predefined clinical issues were discussed to achieve consensus in the absence of robust data. Key issues discussed include systems for CS management, including the "hub-and-spoke" model vs a tier-based network, minimum levels of data to communicate when considering transfer, disciplines that should be involved in a "shock team," goals for mechanical circulatory support device selection, and optimal flow on such devices. Overall, the document provides expert consensus on some important issues facing practitioners managing HF-CS. It is hoped that this will clarify areas where consensus has been reached and stimulate future research and registries to provide insight regarding other crucial knowledge gaps.

Associations Between Preimplant Cancer Type and Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes: An INTERMACS Registry Analysis.

We used the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database to examine whether history of a solid versus hematologic malignancy impacts outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We included LVAD recipients (2007-2017) with cancer history reported (N = 14,799, 21% female, 24% Black). Multivariate models examined the association between cancer type and post-LVAD mortality and adverse events. Competing risk analyses compared death and heart transplantation between cancer types and those without cancer in bridge-to-transplant (BTT) patients. A total of 909 (6.1%) patients had a history of cancer (4.9% solid tumor, 1.3% hematologic malignancy). Solid tumors were associated with higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.57), major bleeding (aHR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.00-1.32), and pump thrombosis (aHR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.09-2.13), whereas hematologic malignancies were associated with increased major infection (aHR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.14-1.80). Compared to BTT patients without a history of cancer, solid tumor patients were less likely to undergo transplantation (adjusted subdistribution HR [aSHR] = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45-0.89) and hematologic malignancy patients were as likely to experience death (aSHR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.63-2.14) and transplantation (aSHR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.44-1.08). Cancer history and type impact post-LVAD outcomes. As LVAD utilization in cancer survivors increases, we need strategies to improve post-LVAD outcomes in these patients.

Safety and Performance of the Aortix Device in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Cardiorenal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) complicates 33% of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) admissions, and patients with persistent congestion at discharge have high 30-day event rates. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel catheter-deployed intra-aortic entrainment pump (IAEP) in patients with ADHF with CRS and persistent congestion. METHODS: A multicenter (n = 14), nonrandomized, single-arm, safety and feasibility study of IAEP therapy was conducted. Within patient changes (post-pre IAEP therapy) in fluid loss, hemodynamics, patient-reported dyspnea, and serum biomarkers were assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank testing. RESULTS: Of 21 enrolled patients, 18 received Aortix therapy. Mean ± SD patient age was 60.3 ± 7.9 years. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 22.5% (25th-75th percentile: 10.0%-53.5%); 27.8% had a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Pre-therapy, patients received 8.7 ± 4.1 days of loop diuretic agents and 44% were on inotropes. Pump therapy averaged 4.6 ± 1.6 days, yielding net fluid losses of 10.7 ± 6.5 L (P < 0.001) and significant (P < 0.01) reductions in central venous pressure (change from baseline: -8.5 mm Hg [25th-75th percentile: -3.5 to -10.0 mm Hg]), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (-11.0 mm Hg [25th-75th percentile: -5.0 to -14.0 mm Hg]), and serum creatinine (-0.2 mg/dL [25th-75th percentile: -0.1 to -0.5 mg/dL]) with improved estimated glomerular filtration rate (+5.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 [25th-75th percentile: 2.0-9.0 mL/min/1.73 m2]) and patient-reported dyspnea score (+16 [25th-75th percentile: 3-37]). Dyspnea scores, natriuretic peptides, and renal function improvements persisted through 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study of patients with ADHF, persistent congestion, and worsening renal function due to CRS supports the potential for safely achieving decongestion using IAEP therapy. These initial promising results provide the basis for future randomized clinical trials of this novel pump. (An Evaluation of the Safety and Performance of the Aortix System for Intra-Aortic Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiorenal Syndrome [The Aortix CRS Pilot Study]; NCT04145635).

Emerging Individualized Approaches in the Management of Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome With Renal Assist Devices.

Growing insights into the pathophysiology of acute cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) in acute decompensated heart failure have indicated that not every rise in creatinine is associated with adverse outcomes. Detection of persistent volume overload and diuretic resistance associated with creatinine rise may identify patients with true acute CRS. More in-depth phenotyping is needed to identify pathologic processes in renal arterial perfusion, venous outflow, and microcirculatory-interstitial-lymphatic axis alterations that can contribute to acute CRS. Recently, various novel device-based interventions designed to target different pathophysiologic components of acute CRS are in early feasibility and proof-of-concept studies. However, appropriate trial endpoints that reflect improvement in cardiorenal trajectories remain elusive and highly debated. In this review the authors describe the variety of physiological derangements leading to acute CRS and the opportunity to individualize the management of acute CRS with novel renal assist devices that can target specific components of these alterations.

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).

Concurrent valvular procedures during left ventricular assist device implantation and outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 trial portfolio.

BACKGROUND: Correction of valvular disease is often undertaken during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with uncertain benefit. We analyzed clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott) LVAD implantation in those with various concurrent valve procedures (HM3+VP) with those with an isolated LVAD implant (HM3 alone). METHODS: The study included 2200 patients with HM3 implanted within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial portfolio who underwent 820 concurrent procedures among which 466 (21.8%) were HM3+VP. VPs included 101 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid; 85 patients had multiple VPs. Perioperative complications, major adverse events, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent HM3+VP had higher-acuity Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (1-2: 41% vs 31%) compared with no VPs (P < .05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124 vs 76 minutes; P < .0001) and hospital length of stay (20 vs 18 days; P < .0001) were longer in HM3+VP. A higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs 23.8%), and right heart failure (41.5% vs 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP at 0 to 30 days (P < .01), with no difference in 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%) or 2-year survival (81.7% vs 80.8%). Analysis of individual VP showed no differences in survival compared to HM3 alone. No differences were noted among patients with either significant mitral (moderate or worse) or tricuspid (moderate or worse) regurgitation with or without corrective surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent VPs, commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, with no effect on short- and long-term survival. There is sufficient equipoise to consider a randomized trial on the benefit of commonly performed VPs (such as mitral or tricuspid regurgitation correction), during LVAD implantation.

Rationale and Design of the Proactive-HF Trial for Managing Patients With NYHA Class III Heart Failure by Using the Combined Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor and the Cordella Heart Failure System.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and monitoring congestion in patients with heart failure (HF) are key to disease management and preventing hospitalizations. A pulmonary artery pressure (PAP)-guided HF management system providing access to body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, PAP, and symptoms, may provide new insights into the effects of patient engagement and comprehensive care for remote GDMT titration and congestion management. METHODS: The PROACTIVE-HF study was originally approved in 2018 as a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, multicenter trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Cordella PAP Sensor in patients with HF and with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III symptoms. Since then, robust clinical evidence supporting PAP-guided HF management has emerged, making clinical equipoise and enrolling patients into a standard-of-care control arm challenging. Therefore, PROACTIVE-HF was changed to a single-arm trial in 2021 with prespecified safety and effectiveness endpoints to provide evidence for a similar risk/benefit profile as the CardioMEMS HF System. CONCLUSION: The single-arm PROACTIVE-HF trial is expected to further demonstrate the benefits of PAP-guided HF management of patients with NYHA class III HF. The addition of vital signs, patient engagement and self-reported symptoms may provide new insights into remote GDMT titration and congestion management.

Comparison of Evaluations for Heart Transplant Before Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Subsequent Receipt of Transplant at Transplant vs Nontransplant Centers.

Importance: In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services revised its national coverage determination, removing the requirement to obtain review from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center to implant a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for bridge-to-transplant (BTT) intent at an LVAD-only center. The association between center-level transplant availability and access to heart transplant, the gold-standard therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), is unknown. Objective: To investigate the association of center transplant availability with LVAD implant strategies and subsequent heart transplant following LVAD implant before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs multicenter US registry database was conducted from April 1, 2012, to June 30, 2020. The population included patients with HF receiving a primary durable LVAD. Exposures: LVAD center transplant availability (LVAD/transplant vs LVAD only). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were implant strategy as BTT and subsequent transplant by 2 years. Covariates that might affect listing strategy and outcomes were included (eg, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities) in multivariable models. Parameters for BTT listing were estimated using logistic regression with center-level random effects and for receipt of a transplant using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing event. Results: The sample included 22 221 LVAD recipients with a median age of 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-67.0) years, of whom 17 420 (78.4%) were male and 3156 (14.2%) received implants at LVAD-only centers. Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD/transplant center was associated with a 79% increased adjusted odds of BTT LVAD designation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.38; P < .001). The 2-year transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% at LVAD/transplant centers and 11.9% at LVAD-only centers. There was an associated 33% increased rate of transplant at LVAD/transplant centers compared with LVAD-only centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) with a similar hazard for death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD-transplant center was associated with increased odds of BTT intent at implant and subsequent transplant receipt for patients at 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change may have the unintended consequence of further increasing inequities in access to transplant among patients at LVAD-only centers.

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.

Center Variability in Patient Outcomes Following HeartMate 3 Implantation: An Analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: As left ventricular assist device (LVAD) survival rates continue to improve, evaluating site-specific variability in outcomes can facilitate identifying targets for quality-improvement initiative opportunities in the field. METHODS: Deidentified center-specific outcomes were analyzed for HeartMate 3 (HM3) patients enrolled in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal and continued access protocol trials. Centers < 25th percentile for HM3 volumes were excluded. Variability in risk-adjusted center mortality was assessed at 90 days and 2 years (conditional upon 90-day survival). Adverse event (AE) rates were compared across centers. RESULTS: In the 48 included centers (1958 patients), study-implant volumes ranged between 17 and 106 HM3s. Despite similar trial-inclusion criteria, patient demographics varied across sites, including age quartile ((Q)1-Q3:57-62 years), sex (73%-85% male), destination therapy intent (60%-84%), and INTERMACS profile 1-2 (16%-48%). Center mortality was highly variable, nadiring at ≤ 3.6% (≤ 25th percentile) and peaking at ≥ 10.4% (≥ 75th percentile) at 90 days and ≤ 10.2% and ≥ 18.7%, respectively, at 2 years. Centers with low mortality rates tended to have lower 2-year AE rates, but no center was a top performer for all AEs studied. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and AEs were highly variable across MOMENTUM 3 centers. Studies are needed to improve our understanding of the drivers of outcome variability and to ascertain best practices associated with high-performing centers across the continuum of intraoperative to chronic stages of LVAD support.