A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: In two interim analyses of this trial, patients with advanced heart failure who were treated with a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device were less likely to have pump thrombosis or nondisabling stroke than were patients treated with a mechanical-bearing axial-flow left ventricular assist device. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the centrifugal-flow pump or the axial-flow pump irrespective of the intended goal of use (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The principal secondary end point was pump replacement at 2 years. RESULTS: This final analysis included 1028 enrolled patients: 516 in the centrifugal-flow pump group and 512 in the axial-flow pump group. In the analysis of the primary end point, 397 patients (76.9%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 332 (64.8%) in the axial-flow pump group, remained alive and free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device at 2 years (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.91; P<0.001 for superiority). Pump replacement was less common in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (12 patients [2.3%] vs. 57 patients [11.3%]; relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.38; P<0.001). The numbers of events per patient-year for stroke of any severity, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device was associated with less frequent need for pump replacement than an axial-flow device and was superior with respect to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755.).

Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In an early analysis of this trial, use of a magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow circulatory pump was found to improve clinical outcomes, as compared with a mechanical-bearing axial continuous-flow pump, at 6 months in patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: In a randomized noninferiority and superiority trial, we compared the centrifugal-flow pump with the axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score of >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The noninferiority margin for the risk difference (centrifugal-flow pump group minus axial-flow pump group) was -10 percentage points. RESULTS: Of 366 patients, 190 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 176 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (79.5%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 106 (60.2%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, 9.8 percentage points [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.69 [P<0.001 for superiority]). Reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (3 patients [1.6%] vs. 30 patients [17.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P<0.001). The rates of death and disabling stroke were similar in the two groups, but the overall rate of stroke was lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (10.1% vs. 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.84, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was superior to a mechanical-bearing axial-flow pump with regard to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755 .).

Predictors of hospital length of stay after implantation of a left ventricular assist device: an analysis of the INTERMACS registry.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported on hospital length of stay (LOS) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The purpose of this study was to determine pre- and peri-operative predictors of hospital LOS after LVAD implantation. METHODS: We analyzed adult primary continuous-flow LVAD patients implanted between June 23, 2006 and December 31, 2010 at 105 institutions from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS). Retrospective analyses included measures of central tendency, frequencies, correlations and stepwise multivariable regression modeling (p ≤ 0.05). Independent variables included demographic characteristics, pre-implant clinical and behavioral variables and concomitant surgery. RESULTS: Characteristics of the patients (n = 2,200) included: mean age 54.6 ± 12.6 years; 79% male; 69% white; 57% INTERMACS Profile 1 or 2; 37% diabetic; 21% with history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG); 7% with history of valve surgery; and 37% with concomitant surgery. Median hospital LOS (implant to discharge) was 20 days. Significant predictors of an increased hospital LOS included demographic characteristics (older age and non-white), pre-implant clinical variables (history of CABG or valve surgery, diabetes, ascites, INTERMACS Profiles 1 and 2, low albumin, high blood urea nitrogen, high right atrial pressure) and concomitant surgery, explaining 12% variance (F = 22.65, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Demographic characteristics, pre-implant variables and concomitant surgery partially explained hospital LOS after continuous-flow LVAD implant. These variables have implications regarding selection of patients for mechanical circulatory support.

Utility of gene expression profiling score variability to predict clinical events in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling test scores have primarily been used to identify heart transplant recipients who have a low probability of rejection at the time of surveillance testing. We hypothesized that the variability of gene expression profiling test scores within a patient may predict risk of future events of allograft dysfunction or death. METHOD: Patients from the IMAGE study with rejection surveillance gene expression profiling tests performed at 1- to 6-month intervals were selected for this cohort study. Gene expression profiling score variability was defined as the standard deviation of an individual's cumulative test scores. Gene expression profiling ordinal score (range, 0-39), threshold score (binary value=1 if ordinal score ≥ 34), and score variability were studied in multivariate Cox regression models to predict future clinical events. RESULTS: Race, age at time of transplantation, and time posttransplantation were significantly associated with future events in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analyses, gene expression profiling score variability, but not ordinal scores or scores over threshold, was independently associated with future clinical events. The regression coefficient P values were <0.001, 0.46, and 0.773, for gene expression profiling variability, ordinal, and threshold scores, respectively. The hazard ratio for a 1 unit increase in variability was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.4-2.3). DISCUSSION: The variability of a heart recipient's gene expression profiling test scores over time may provide prognostic utility. This information is independent of the probability of acute cellular rejection at the time of testing that is rendered from a single ordinal gene-expression profiling test score.

Demographic, psychosocial, and behavioral factors associated with survival after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation requires substantial personal, financial, and psychosocial resources. Using an existing multisite data set, we examined predictors of mortality at 5 to 10 years after heart transplantation. METHODS: All 555 participants completed a self-report quality of life instrument. Of these patients, 55 (10%) died 5 to 10 years after heart transplantation. Statistical analyses included frequencies, means, Pearson correlation coefficients, and Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: Educational level and higher levels of social and economic satisfaction were predictive of improved survival. Conversely, married status, more cumulative infections, the presence of hematologic disorders, higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and poor adherence to medical care predicted worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic, clinical, psychosocial, and behavioral factors were important predictors of long-term survival after heart transplantation. These findings have important implications for patient selection for heart transplantation, as well as for posttransplantation care.

Gene-expression profiling for rejection surveillance after cardiac transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy is the standard method of monitoring for rejection in recipients of a cardiac transplant. However, this procedure is uncomfortable, and there are risks associated with it. Gene-expression profiling of peripheral-blood specimens has been shown to correlate with the results of an endomyocardial biopsy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 602 patients who had undergone cardiac transplantation 6 months to 5 years previously to be monitored for rejection with the use of gene-expression profiling or with the use of routine endomyocardial biopsies, in addition to clinical and echocardiographic assessment of graft function. We performed a noninferiority comparison of the two approaches with respect to the composite primary outcome of rejection with hemodynamic compromise, graft dysfunction due to other causes, death, or retransplantation. RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 19 months, patients who were monitored with gene-expression profiling and those who underwent routine biopsies had similar 2-year cumulative rates of the composite primary outcome (14.5% and 15.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with gene-expression profiling, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.68). The 2-year rates of death from any cause were also similar in the two groups (6.3% and 5.5%, respectively; P=0.82). Patients who were monitored with the use of gene-expression profiling underwent fewer biopsies per person-year of follow-up than did patients who were monitored with the use of endomyocardial biopsies (0.5 vs. 3.0, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among selected patients who had received a cardiac transplant more than 6 months previously and who were at a low risk for rejection, a strategy of monitoring for rejection that involved gene-expression profiling, as compared with routine biopsies, was not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse outcomes and resulted in the performance of significantly fewer biopsies. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00351559.)

Interpretation of B-type natriuretic peptide in cardiac disease and other comorbid conditions.

B-Type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is elevated in states of increased ventricular wall stress. BNP is most commonly used to rule out congestive heart failure (CHF) in dyspneic patients. BNP levels are influenced by age, gender and, to a surprisingly large extent, by body mass index (BMI). In addition, it can be elevated in a wide variety of clinical settings with or without CHF. BNP is elevated in other cardiac disease states such as the acute coronary syndromes, diastolic dysfunction, atrial fibrillation (AF), amyloidosis, restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM), and valvular heart disease. BNP is elevated in non-cardiac diseases such as pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism, and renal failure. BNP is also elevated in the setting of critical illness such as in acute decompensated CHF (ADHF) and sepsis. This variation across clinical settings has significant implications given the increasing frequency with which BNP testing is being performed. It is important for clinicians to understand how to appropriately interpret BNP in light of the comorbidities of individual patients to maximize its clinical utility. We will review the molecular biology and physiology of natriuretic peptides as well as the relevant literature on the utilization of BNP in CHF as well as in other important clinical situations, conditions that are commonly associated with CHF and or dyspnea.