External assessment of the EUROMACS right-sided heart failure risk score.

The EUROMACS Right-Sided Heart Failure Risk Score was developed to predict right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. The predictive ability of the EUROMACS score has not been tested in other cohorts. We performed a single center analysis of a continuous-flow (CF) LVAD cohort (n = 254) where we calculated EUROMACS risk scores and assessed for right ventricular heart failure after LVAD implantation. Thirty-nine percent of patients (100/254) had post-operative RVF, of which 9% (23/254) required prolonged inotropic support and 5% (12/254) required RVAD placement. For patients who developed RVF after LVAD implantation, there was a 45% increase in the hazards of death on LVAD support (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.98-2.2, p = 0.066). Two variables in the EUROMACS score (Hemoglobin and Right Atrial Pressure to Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure ratio) were not predictive of RVF in our cohort. Overall, the EUROMACS score had poor external discrimination in our cohort with area under the curve of 58% (95% CI 52-66%). Further work is necessary to enhance our ability to predict RVF after LVAD implantation.

Healthcare Resource Use and Cost Implications in the MOMENTUM 3 Long-Term Outcome Study.

BACKGROUND: The MOMENTUM 3 trial compares the centrifugal HeartMate 3 (HM3) with the axial HeartMate II (HMII) continuous-flow left ventricular assist system in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy. The trial's 2-year clinical outcome (n=366) demonstrated superiority of the HM3 for the primary end point (survival free of a disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning pump). This analysis evaluates health resource use and cost implications of the observed differences between the 2 devices while patients were enrolled in the trial. METHODS: We analyzed all hospitalizations and their associated costs occurring after discharge from the implant hospitalization until censoring (study withdrawal, heart transplantation, and pump exchange with a nonstudy device or death). Each adjudicated episode of hospital-based care was used to calculate costs (device-attributable and non-device-attributable event costs), estimated by using trial data and payer administrative claims databases. Cost savings stratified by subgroups (study outcome [transplant, death, or ongoing on device], intended goal of therapy, type of insurance, or sex) were also assessed. RESULTS: In 366 randomly assigned patients, 361 comprised the as-treated group (189 in the HM3 group and 172 in the HMII group), of whom 337 (177 in the HM3 group and 160 in the HMII group) were successfully discharged following implantation. The HM3 arm experienced fewer total hospitalizations per patient-year (HM3: 2.1±0.2 versus HMII: 2.7±0.2; P=0.015) and 8.3 fewer hospital days per patient-year on average (HM3: 17.1 days versus HMII: 25.5 days; P=0.003). These differences were driven by patients hospitalized for suspected pump thrombosis (HM3: 0.6% versus HMII: 12.5%; P<0.001) and stroke (HM3: 2.8% versus HMII: 11.3%; P=0.002). Controlled for time spent in the study (average cumulative cost per patient-year), postdischarge HM3 arm costs were 51% lower than with the HMII (HM3: $37 685±4251 versus HMII: $76 599±11 889, P<0.001) and similar in either bridge to transplant or destination therapy intent. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year outcome economic analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, the HM3 demonstrated a reduction in rehospitalizations, hospital days spent during rehospitalizations, and a significant cost savings following discharge in comparison with the HMII left ventricular assist system, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02224755.

Gastrointestinal bleed after left ventricular assist device implantation: incidence, management, and prevention.

BACKGROUND: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have become the standard of care for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). While these devices have improved durability compared to earlier generation left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), increased frequency in some complications has been seen, including gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), pump thrombosis and hemolysis. We discuss the incidence, management and prevention of GIB after CF-LVAD implantation. METHODS: We reviewed the current literature available on the incidence, management and prevention of GIB after CF-LVAD implantation with a focus on our experience at the University of Minnesota, with data on nearly 300 patients who received a CF-LVAD from 2005 to 2013. RESULTS: The incidence of GIB after CF-LVAD varies between 18-40% in numerous studies. At the University of Minnesota, out of 233 patients who underwent HeartMate II (HMII) implantation between 2005-2013, 60 GIB episodes occurred in 51 patients (22%), with an event rate of 0.17 gastrointestinal bleeds/patient-year of support. The etiology of GIB appears to be multifactorial. The main factors which have been identified include the need for chronic anticoagulation, acquired von Willebrand syndrome, platelet dysfunction and increased incidence of arteriovenous malformations due to chronic low pulse pressure. When managing an LVAD patient with GIB, a multi-disciplinary approach is needed. The main goals of treatment are evaluating the location and severity of the bleed, holding anti-coagulants and resuscitation to maintain stable hemodynamics. CONCLUSIONS: GIB is a complication with considerable morbidity. Future efforts to further understand the etiology of GIB and optimize anti-coagulation are needed to improve outcomes following CF-LVAD implantation.

Comparison of risk scores to estimate perioperative mortality in aortic valve replacement surgery.

BACKGROUND: Transaortic valve implantation has recently been introduced as an alternative to aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. However, accurate assessment of surgical risk is critical for appropriate patient selection. We compared the accuracy of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score, the European System for Cardiac Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), and the Veterans Administration (VA) risk score in predicting perioperative mortality after AVR. METHODS: We included 537 consecutive patients who underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center between 1997 and 2008. Observed and predicted perioperative (30-day) mortality rates were compared. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed to assess the performance of the scores. RESULTS: Perioperative mortality rate was 5.9% (n=32). Predicted mortality rates for the EuroSCORE, STS score, and VA score were 15.6%, 3.6%, and 6.7%, respectively (p=0.001). The EuroSCORE overestimated mortality in all patients, most notably among those with ejection fraction less than 35% (49% predicted versus 9% observed). The EuroSCORE had poor calibration (goodness-of-fit test p<0.008), whereas the STS and the VA scores were well calibrated. However, all three scores displayed good discrimination characteristics per the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves: STS score 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 0.77); VA score 0.66 (95% confidence interval: 0.62 to 0.70); and EuroSCORE 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.72; p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The EuroSCORE substantially overestimates perioperative mortality risk in AVR, particularly in patients with low ejection fraction. These data have implications when deciding the appropriate intervention (transaortic valve implantation versus AVR) for high-risk aortic stenosis patients.

Is resternotomy in cardiac surgery still a problem?

Multiple factors contribute to the growing number of reoperations for congenital and acquired cardiovascular diseases in the United States. Although the hazards are well-recognized, the health economic burden of resternotomy (RS) remains unclear and may be difficult to quantify. Contrary to published studies citing low frequencies of catastrophic hemorrhage and mortality, survey responses from practicing surgeons disclose higher rates of complications. Safety strategies in cardiac reoperation have generally involved efforts to maximize visualization during dissection, specialized surgical maneuvers and instrumentation, customized methods for establishing extracorporeal circulation, and techniques to prevent or avoid retrosternal adhesions. Yet, the relative cost-effectiveness of these strategies is largely unexplored. With the ongoing constraints in healthcare budgets, differentiating the value of existing and future approaches in terms of relative clinical benefits, costs, and impact on resource utilization will become increasingly important. We reviewed the relevant published literature in order to survey the morbidity and resource utilization associated with RS in cardiac reoperation and to identify key issues relevant for future studies.