Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life Is a Predictor of Outcomes in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Treated With Left Ventricular Assist Device Compared With Medical Management: Results From the ROADMAP Study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management).

BACKGROUND: The prospective observational ROADMAP study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management) demonstrated that ambulatory advanced heart failure patients selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely to be alive at 1 year on original therapy with ≥75-m improvement in 6-minute walk distance compared with patients assigned to optimal medical management. Whether baseline health-related quality of life (hrQoL) resulted in a heterogeneity of this treatment benefit is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-reported hrQoL was assessed with EuroQol questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS). We aimed to identify predictors of event-free survival and survival with acceptable hrQoL (VAS≥60). LVAD patients had significant improvement in 3 of 5 EuroQol dimensions (P<0.05), but no significant changes were observed with optimal medical management. Among patients with baseline VAS<55, survival on original treatment was lower for optimal medical management patients compared with those assigned to LVAD (58±7% versus 82±5%; P=0.004). No such difference was seen if baseline VAS was ≥55 (70±7% versus 75±9%; P=0.79). Survival on original therapy with acceptable quality of life was also more likely with LVAD versus optimal medical management if baseline VAS was <55, whereas outcomes in patients with higher baseline VAS scores were similar regardless of treatment assignment (P=0.046 for treatment arm and baseline VAS interaction). CONCLUSIONS: LVAD therapy resulted in improvement of patient health status in heart failure patients with low self-reported hrQoL, but not in patients with acceptable quality of life at the time of LVAD implantation. Patient-reported hrQoL should be integrated into decision making concerning the use and timing of LVAD therapy in heart failure patients who are symptom limited but remain ambulatory. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01452802.

Accuracy of Seattle Heart Failure Model and HeartMate II Risk Score in Non-Inotrope-Dependent Advanced Heart Failure Patients: Insights From the ROADMAP Study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients).

BACKGROUND: Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advanced heart failure patients not on inotropes is unclear. Relevant prediction models exist (SHFM [Seattle Heart Failure Model] and HMRS [HeartMate II Risk Score]), but use in this group is not established. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) is a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study of 200 advanced heart failure patients not on inotropes who met indications for LVAD implantation, comparing the effectiveness of HeartMate II support versus optimal medical management. We compared SHFM-predicted versus observed survival (overall survival and LVAD-free survival) in the optimal medical management arm (n=103) and HMRS-predicted versus observed survival in all LVAD patients (n=111) using Cox modeling, receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and calibration plots. In the optimal medical management cohort, the SHFM was a significant predictor of survival (hazard ratio=2.98; P<0.001; ROC area under the curve=0.71; P<0.001) but not LVAD-free survival (hazard ratio=1.41; P=0.097; ROC area under the curve=0.56; P=0.314). SHFM showed adequate calibration for survival but overestimated LVAD-free survival. In the LVAD cohort, the HMRS had marginal discrimination at 3 (Cox P=0.23; ROC area under the curve=0.71; P=0.026) and 12 months (Cox P=0.036; ROC area under the curve=0.62; P=0.122), but calibration was poor, underestimating survival across time and risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In non-inotrope-dependent advanced heart failure patients receiving optimal medical management, the SHFM was predictive of overall survival but underestimated the risk of clinical worsening and LVAD implantation. Among LVAD patients, the HMRS had marginal discrimination and underestimated survival post-LVAD implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01452802.

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients: The ROADMAP Study 2-Year Results.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to provide the pre-specified primary endpoint of the ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) trial at 2 years. BACKGROUND: The ROADMAP trial was a prospective nonrandomized observational study of 200 patients (97 with a left ventricular assist device [LVAD], 103 on optimal medical management [OMM]) that showed that survival with improved functional status at 1 year was better with LVADs compared with OMM in a patient population of ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIb/IV patients. METHODS: The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance ≥75 m. RESULTS: Patients receiving LVAD versus OMM had lower baseline health-related quality of life, reduced Seattle Heart Failure Model 1-year survival (78% vs. 84%; p = 0.012), and were predominantly INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 4 (65% vs. 34%; p < 0.001) versus profiles 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint at 2 years: 30% LVAD versus 12% OMM (odds ratio: 3.2 [95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 7.7]; p = 0.012). Survival as treated on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD versus OMM (70 ± 5% vs. 41 ± 5%; p < 0.001), but there was no difference in intent-to-treat survival (70 ± 5% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.307). In the OMM arm, 23 of 103 (22%) received delayed LVADs (18 within 12 months; 5 from 12 to 24 months). LVAD adverse events declined after year 1 for bleeding (primarily gastrointestinal) and arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance was superior with LVAD compared with OMM at 2 years. Reduction in key adverse events beyond 1 year was observed in the LVAD group. The ROADMAP trial provides risk-benefit information to guide patient- and physician-shared decision making for elective LVAD therapy as a treatment for heart failure. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients: Results From the ROADMAP Study.

BACKGROUND: Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with noninotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD support versus optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous inotropic support. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter (N = 41), observational study of 200 patients (97 LVAD, 103 OMM). Entry criteria included ≥1 hospitalization for HF in the last 12 months and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m. The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6MWD ≥75 m at 12 months. RESULTS: LVAD patients were more severely ill, with more patients classified as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 4 (65% LVAD vs. 34% OMM; p < 0.001) than 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint (39% LVAD vs. 21% OMM; odds ratio: 2.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.8]; p = 0.012). On the basis of as-treated analysis, 12-month survival was greater for LVAD versus OMM (80 ± 4% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.022) patients. Adverse events were higher in LVAD patients, at 1.89 events/patient-year (EPPY), primarily driven by bleeding (1.22 EPPY), than with OMM, at 0.83 EPPY, primarily driven by worsening HF (0.68 EPPY). Most patients (80% LVAD vs. 62% OMM; p < 0.001) required hospitalizations. Health-related quality of life (HRQol) and depression improved from baseline more significantly with LVADs than with OMM (Δ visual analog scale: 29 ± 25 vs. 10 ± 22 [p < 0.001]; Δ Patient Health Questionnaire-9: -5 ± 7 vs. -1 ± 5 [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Survival with improved functional status was better with HMII LVAD compared with OMM. Despite experiencing more frequent adverse events, LVAD patients improved more in HRQol and depression. The results support HMII use in functionally limited, noninotrope-dependent HF patients with poor HRQoL. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device [LVAD] and Medical Management [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Radiologic assessment of HeartMate II position: Minimal pump migration after long-term support.

BACKGROUND: Surgical positioning of the HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device assuring an unobstructed blood flow path is essential for optimal device function and hemodynamic support. We report a non-invasive radiologic assessment of HMII position after implant and long-term follow-up. METHODS: We reviewed 132 consecutive patients (age 64 ± 14 years; 86% male; 60% destination therapy) implanted with an HMII from January 2009 to December 2012 and followed for them for up to 4 years. A radiologist measured pump position, pocket depth and cannula angles using chest radiography. Changes over time were determined in 64 of these patients with pairs of radiographs immediately after implant and at an average of 2.0 ± 0.7 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The axis of the pump relative to the spine was 92 ± 10° at baseline and 94 ± 9° at 2 years (n = 64, p = 0.02), and inflow cannula angles averaged 21 ± 13° from vertical at baseline and 20 ± 12° at 2 years (p = not statistically significant). More than 90% of angle measurements showed <15° movement over the follow-up duration. There was a small but significant superior pump migration from a depth of 12.7 ± 2.7 cm to 10.4 ± 2.6 cm (p < 0.001). There were no cannula obstructions or instances of right ventricular assist device use. The 30-day operative mortality was 3.0%. Prolonged inotrope dependence occurred in 5.3% (7 of 126) of patients, and low rates of pump thrombosis of 0.018 event/patient-year (0 at 3 months) and stroke 0.074 event/patient-year were noted. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive radiographic measurements of surgical pump placement designed to avoid pump and cannula malposition demonstrate stable position with minimal pump migration.

Risk assessment and comparative effectiveness of left ventricular assist device and medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: design and rationale of the ROADMAP clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support is now a proven therapy for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. The role for this therapy in patients with less severe heart failure is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the impact of mechanically assisted circulation using the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device in patients who meet current US Food and Drug Administration-defined criteria for treatment but are not yet receiving intravenous inotropic therapy. METHODS: This is a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial of 200 patients treated with either optimal medical management or a mechanical circulatory support device. CLINICAL CONTEXT: This trial will be the first prospective clinical evaluation comparing outcomes of patients with advanced ambulatory heart failure treated with either ongoing medical therapy or a left ventricular assist device. It is anticipated to provide novel insights regarding relative outcomes with each treatment and an understanding of patient and provider acceptance of the ventricular assist device therapy. This trial will also provide information regarding the risk of events in "stable" patients with advanced heart failure and guidance for the optimal timing of left ventricular assist device therapy.

Pre-operative health status and outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Health status predicts adverse outcomes in heart failure and cardiac surgery patients, but its prognostic value in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement is unknown. METHODS: We examined the association of pre-operative health status, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), with survival and hospitalization after LVAD using the KCCQ score as a continuous variable and stratified by KCCQ score quartile plus missing KCCQ in 1,125 clinical trial participants who received the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA) as destination therapy (n = 635) or bridge to transplantation (n = 490). RESULTS: The mean pre-operative KCCQ score was 29.4 ± 18.7 among survivors (n = 719), and 27.1 ± 18.3 (n = 406) in those who died. In time-to-event analysis for all available follow-up using health status as a continuous variable, the pre-operative KCCQ score did not correlate with overall mortality after LVAD implantation (p = 0.178). Small absolute differences were seen between the pre-operative KCCQ quartile and 30-day survival (Q4 95% vs. Q1 89% vs. missing 87%; p = 0.0009 for trend), 180-day survival (Q4 83% vs. Q1 76% vs missing 79%; p = 0.060 for trend), and days hospitalized at 180 days (Q4 29.8 ± 25.6 vs. Q1 34.1 ± 27.1 vs. missing 36.5 ± 29.9 days; p = 0.009 for trend). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that pre-operative health status has limited association with outcomes after LVAD implantation. Although these data require further study in a diverse population, mechanical circulatory support may represent a relatively unique clinical situation, distinct from heart failure and other cardiac surgeries, in which heart failure-specific health status measures may be largely reversed.

Risk assessment for continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: does the destination therapy risk score work? An analysis of over 1,000 patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the utility of the Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). BACKGROUND: The DTRS was developed to predict the risk of 90-day in-hospital mortality with pulsatile flow LVAD as destination therapy (DT). Despite ongoing use in patients with continuous flow devices, its utility has not been studied in such populations. METHODS: The DTRS was determined in 1,124 patients with the continuous flow HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD as a bridge to transplant (BTT, n = 486) and DT (n = 638) and 114 DT patients with the pulsatile flow HeartMate XVE (Thoratec Corporation). Patients were divided into risk groups based on DTRS: low (0-8), medium (9-16), and high (>16). RESULTS: The 90-day in-hospital mortality for low-, medium-, and high-risk groups was 8%, 7%, and 16%, respectively, for BTT patients; 9%, 12%, and 19%, respectively, for DT patients; and 11%, 18%, and 25%, respectively, for XVE DT patients. The high-risk groups had more than a 2-fold increased risk of mortality compared with the low-risk groups. However, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for 90-day in-hospital mortality yielded modest values ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 for the HeartMate II BTT and DT groups, respectively. Survival rates over 2 years were statistically significantly different as stratified by the 3 DTRS groups for patients implanted for DT but not for BTT. CONCLUSIONS: DTRS provides poor discrimination of mortality for BTT patients and only modest discrimination for DT patients receiving continuous flow LVAD.

Assessment of cardiac function during axial-flow left ventricular assist device support using a left ventricular pressure-derived relationship: comparison with pre-load recruitable stroke work.

BACKGROUND: In this study we evaluate load-independent ventricular function during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support based solely on telemetered measurements of left ventricular (LV) pressure, which has not been reported previously. METHODS: Adult sheep underwent placement of an axial-flow LVAD, a telemetered LV pressure manometer and instruments for pressure-volume analysis. In unsedated sheep, the simultaneous determination of both stroke work/end-diastolic volume (SW/EDP [PRSW]; slope: M(W)) and LV triple-product (TP = LVSP . dP/dt . HR) vs LV end-diastolic pressure (TP/EDP; slope: M(TP)) were performed before and then after beta(1)-blockade using the LVAD to acutely unload the ventricle. RESULTS: LVAD support (4.5 +/- 0.31 liters/min) was maintained for 1 week. During LV unloading "runs," the LVAD flow (Q(V)) increased (up to 5.8 +/- 0.71 liters/min), although there were decreases in SW (3,061 +/- 747 to 1,556 +/- 410 mm Hg ml(-1)), LV TP (3,127 +/- 397 to 1,019 +/- 335 x 10(5)) and LV EDP (18.2 +/- 1.2 to 9.7 +/- 1.8 mm Hg). The TP/EDP and SW/EDV relationships established during the unloading runs were highly linear (R(2) up to 0.95) and their slopes were reduced by beta-adrenergic blockade (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The TP/EDP relationship established during LVAD unloading of the LV was load-independent and sensitive to changes in cardiac inotropy, and correlated with PRSW.