A Dual-Lumen Percutaneous Cannula for Managing Refractory Right Ventricular Failure.

A right ventricular assist device (RVAD) using a dual-lumen percutaneous cannula inserted through the right internal jugular vein (IJV) might improve weaning in patients with refractory right ventricular (RV) failure. However, the reported experience with this cannula is limited. We reviewed the records of all patients receiving RVAD support with this new dual-lumen cannula at our institution between April 2017 and February 2019. We recorded data on weaning, mortality, and device-specific complications. We compared outcomes among three subgroups based on the indications for RVAD support (postcardiotomy, cardiogenic shock, and primary respiratory failure) and against similar results in the literature. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the 40 patients (29 men) was 53 (15.5) years. Indications for implantation were postcardiotomy support in 18 patients, cardiogenic shock in 12, and respiratory failure in 10. In all, 17 (94%) patients in the postcardiotomy group were weaned from RVAD support, five (42%) in the cardiogenic shock group, and seven (70%) in the respiratory failure group, overall higher than those reported in the literature (49% to 59%) for surgically placed RVADs. Whereas published in-hospital mortality rates range from 42% to 50% for surgically placed RVADs and from 41% to 50% for RVADs with percutaneous cannulas implanted through the right IJV, mortality was 11%, 58%, and 40% in our subgroups, respectively. There were no major device-related complications. This percutaneous dual-lumen cannula appears to be safe and effective for managing refractory RV failure, with improved weaning and mortality profile, and with limited device-specific adverse events.

Effects of Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition in Hyperuricemic Heart Failure Patients: The Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition for Hyperuricemic Heart Failure Patients (EXACT-HF) Study.

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress may contribute to heart failure (HF) progression. Inhibiting xanthine oxidase in hyperuricemic HF patients may improve outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 253 patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and serum uric acid levels ≥9.5 mg/dL to receive allopurinol (target dose, 600 mg daily) or placebo in a double-blind, multicenter trial. The primary composite end point at 24 weeks was based on survival, worsening HF, and patient global assessment. Secondary end points included change in quality of life, submaximal exercise capacity, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Uric acid levels were significantly reduced with allopurinol in comparison with placebo (treatment difference, -4.2 [-4.9, -3.5] mg/dL and -3.5 [-4.2, -2.7] mg/dL at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively, both P<0.0001). At 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in clinical status between the allopurinol- and placebo-treated patients (worsened 45% versus 46%, unchanged 42% versus 34%, improved 13% versus 19%, respectively; P=0.68). At 12 and 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores or 6-minute walk distances between the 2 groups. At 24 weeks, left ventricular ejection fraction did not change in either group or between groups. Rash occurred more frequently with allopurinol (10% versus 2%, P=0.01), but there was no difference in serious adverse event rates between the groups (20% versus 15%, P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and elevated uric acid levels, xanthine oxidase inhibition with allopurinol failed to improve clinical status, exercise capacity, quality of life, or left ventricular ejection fraction at 24 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00987415.

Deciding which drugs get onto the formulary: a value-based approach.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals, physicians, payers, and patients face economic and ethical decisions about the use of biotechnology drugs, commonly called specialty medications. These often target a small population, have data based on smaller clinical trials, are expensive, and may have questionable advantage. This is a result of how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medications, which is based only on safety and efficacy. Cancer drugs, once approved by the FDA, regardless of cost or value must be covered by Medicare. Some states have laws requiring additional coverage as well. All of this has created an unintended consequence: It has driven up costs with questionable evidence to support the medication's value, placing patients, payers, and providers in an ethical conflict. In this new era of health care transformation, health care leaders must focus on creating value to support a sustainable health system. Christiana Care Health System's Value Institute has designed a new model to evaluate specialty medications, using value as its main criterion. METHODS: This article describes the process and outcomes using a new value model for evaluating specialty medications for a hospital formulary. It also introduces a new criterion of evaluation entitled "Societal Benefit" that provides a rating on quality- of-life issues. With measurable factors of efficacy, risk, cost, and quality-of-life concerns, our methodology provides a more balanced approach in the evaluation of specialty medications. RESULTS: Specialty medications are the fastest growing segment of drug expense, and it is hard to understand how these medications will be sustainable under health care reforms. Unlike other countries, the United States has no national agency providing cost-effectiveness review; review occurs, if at all, at a local level. Laws governing Medicare and most private insurers' coverage of FDA-approved medication and some clinical quality standards conflict with cost-effectiveness, making this type of review difficult. Finally, because these medications affect the health system as a whole, it is a great example to begin to support health care reform. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals need to challenge the value of specialty medication. Although our model will continue to evolve, value is now our central consideration when selecting specialty medications to be added to the formulary. We share this experience to encourage other hospitals to design their own approach to this vital issue.