Evaluating the Impact of Operative Team Familiarity on Cardiac Surgery Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To associate surgeon-anesthesiologist team familiarity (TF) with cardiac surgery outcomes. BACKGROUND: TF, a measure of repeated team member collaborations, has been associated with improved operative efficiency; however, examination of its relationship to clinical outcomes has been limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), or both (CABG+SAVR) between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018. TF was defined as the number of shared procedures between the cardiac surgeon and anesthesiologist within 6 months of each operation. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality, composite morbidity, and 30-day mortality or composite morbidity, assessed before and after risk adjustment using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The cohort included 113,020 patients (84,397 CABG; 15,939 SAVR; 12,684 CABG+SAVR). Surgeon-anesthesiologist dyads in the highest [31631 patients, TF median (interquartile range)=8 (6, 11)] and lowest [44,307 patients, TF=0 (0, 1)] TF terciles were termed familiar and unfamiliar, respectively. The rates of observed outcomes were lower among familiar versus unfamiliar teams: 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 3.1%, P =0.001), 90-day mortality (4.2% vs 4.5%, P =0.023), composite morbidity (57.4% vs 60.6%, P <0.001), and 30-day mortality or composite morbidity (57.9% vs 61.1%, P <0.001). Familiar teams had lower overall risk-adjusted odds of 30-day mortality or composite morbidity [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.894 (0.868, 0.922), P <0.001], and for SAVR significantly lower 30-day mortality [aOR 0.724 (0.547, 0.959), P =0.024], 90-day mortality [aOR 0.779 (0.620, 0.978), P =0.031], and 30-day mortality or composite morbidity [aOR 0.856 (0.791, 0.927), P <0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Given its relationship with improved 30-day cardiac surgical outcomes, increasing TF should be considered among strategies to advance patient outcomes.

A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Among Medicare Beneficiaries in Health Professional Shortage Areas.

OBJECTIVE: Health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) were created by the Health Resources and Services Administration to identify communities with a shortage of clinical providers. For medical conditions, these designations are associated with worse outcomes. However, far less is known about patients undergoing high-complexity surgical procedures, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare postoperative surgical outcomes of high-complexity surgery in beneficiaries living in HPSA versus non-HPSA designated areas. METHODS: This study is a retrospective cohort review of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG between 2014 and 2018. The authors compared risk-adjusted 30-day mortality, complication, reoperation, and readmission rates for beneficiaries living in a designated HPSA versus non-HPSA using a multivariable logistic regression model accounting for patient (eg, age, sex, comorbidities, surgery year) and hospital characteristics (eg, patient-to-nurse ratio, teaching status). Patient travel burden was measured based on the time and distance required to travel from the beneficiary's home zip code to the hospital zip code. RESULTS: Of the 370,532 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG, 30,881 (8.3%) lived in a HPSA. Beneficiaries in HPSAs were found to experience comparable 30-day mortality (3.50% vs. 3.65%, P <0.001), complication (32.67% vs. 33.54%, P <0.001), reoperation (1.58% vs. 1.66%, P <0.001), and readmission (14.72% vs. 14.86%, P <0.001) rates. Beneficiaries experienced greater mean travel times (91.2 vs. 64.0 minutes, P <0.001) and mean travel distances (85.0 vs. 59.3 miles, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries living in designated HPSA experienced comparable surgical outcomes after CABG surgery but a significantly greater travel burden. The greater travel burden experienced by patients living in designated shortage areas to obtain comparable surgical care for complex procedures demonstrates important tradeoffs between access and quality.

Patient-, Clinician-, and Institution-level Variation in Inotrope Use for Cardiac Surgery: A Multicenter Observational Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the risks and benefits of inotropic therapies during cardiac surgery, and the extent of variation in clinical practice remains understudied. Therefore, the authors sought to quantify patient-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related contributions to variation in inotrope use. METHODS: In this observational study, nonemergent adult cardiac surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass were reviewed across a multicenter cohort of academic and community hospitals from 2014 to 2019. Patients who were moribund, receiving mechanical circulatory support, or receiving preoperative or home inotropes were excluded. The primary outcome was an inotrope infusion (epinephrine, dobutamine, milrinone, dopamine) administered for greater than 60 consecutive min intraoperatively or ongoing upon transport from the operating room. Institution-, clinician-, and patient-level variance components were studied. RESULTS: Among 51,085 cases across 611 attending anesthesiologists and 29 hospitals, 27,033 (52.9%) cases received at least one intraoperative inotrope, including 21,796 (42.7%) epinephrine, 6,360 (12.4%) milrinone, 2,000 (3.9%) dobutamine, and 602 (1.2%) dopamine (non-mutually exclusive). Variation in inotrope use was 22.6% attributable to the institution, 6.8% attributable to the primary attending anesthesiologist, and 70.6% attributable to the patient. The adjusted median odds ratio for the same patient receiving inotropes was 1.73 between 2 randomly selected clinicians and 3.55 between 2 randomly selected institutions. Factors most strongly associated with increased likelihood of inotrope use were institutional medical school affiliation (adjusted odds ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.39 to 27.8), heart failure (adjusted odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.46 to 2.76), pulmonary circulation disorder (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.58 to 1.87), loop diuretic home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.69), Black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68), and digoxin home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Variation in inotrope use during cardiac surgery is attributable to the institution and to the clinician, in addition to the patient. Variation across institutions and clinicians suggests a need for future quantitative and qualitative research to understand variation in inotrope use affecting outcomes and develop evidence-based, patient-centered inotrope therapies.

Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, and PARTICIPANTS: This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS: Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.

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.).

Association between biventricular pacing and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in the early post-operative period after left ventricular assist device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve outcomes in heart failure patients. Early ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are common after LVAD and are associated with increased mortality. The association between left ventricular pacing (LVP) with CRT and VAs in the early post-LVAD period remains unclear. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all patients undergoing LVAD implantation from 1/2016 to 12/2019. Patients were divided into those with CRT and active LVP (CRT-LVP) immediately post-LVAD implant versus those without CRT-LVP. Implantable cardiac defibrillator electrograms were reviewed and early VAs were defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation occurring within 30 days of LVAD implantation. RESULTS: Of 186 included patients (mean age 53 years, 75% male, mean body mass index 28), 72 had CRT devices, 63 of whom had LV pacing enabled after LVAD implant (CRT-LVP group). Patients with CRT-LVP were more likely to have VA in the early postoperative period (21% vs. 4%; p = .0001). All 9 patients with CRT in whom LVP was disabled had no early VA. Among those with early VA, patients with CRT-LVP were more likely to have monomorphic VT (77% vs. 40%; p = .07). In multiple logistic regression, CRT-LVP pacing remained an independent predictor of early VA after adjustment for history of VA and AF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRT-LVP after LVAD implant had a higher incidence of early VA (specifically monomorphic VT). Epicardial LV pacing may be proarrhythmic in the early postoperative period after LVAD.

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.

The role of surgery for secondary mitral regurgitation and heart failure in the era of transcatheter mitral valve therapies.

The approach to the management of mitral valve (MV) disease and heart failure (HF) has dramatically changed over the last decades. It is well recognized that severe mitral regurgitation secondary to ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy is associated with an excess risk of mortality. Understanding the impact of the surgical treatment modality on mortality outcomes has been difficult due to the broad spectrum of secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) phenotypes and lack of randomized surgical clinical trials. Over the last 30 years, surgeons have failed to provide compelling evidence to convince the medical community of the need to treat SMR in patients with severe HF. Therefore, the surgical treatment of SMR has never gained uniform acceptance as a significant option among patients suffering from SMR. Recent evidence from randomized trials in a non-surgical eligible patients treated with transcatheter therapies, has provided a new perspective on SMR treatment. Recently published European and American guidelines confirm the key role of percutaneous treatment of SMR and in parallel, these guidelines reinforce the role of mitral valve surgery in patients who require surgical revascularization. Complex mitral valve repair combining subvalvular apparatus repair along with annuloplasty seems to be a promising approach in selected patients in selected centers. Meanwhile, mitral valve replacement has become the preferred surgical strategy in most patients with advanced heart failure and severe LV remodeling or high risk of recurrent mitral regurgitation. In this comprehensive review, we aimed to discuss the role of mitral surgery for SMR in patients with heart failure in the contemporary era and to provide a practical approach for its surgical management.

Quality of life metrics in LVAD patients after hemocompatibility-related adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAE) negatively influence survival. However, no study has examined the impact of these events on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and functional outcomes following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation (CF-LVAD). We assessed the impact of HRAE events on HRQOL and hypothesized that HRAE's adversely impact HRQOL and functional outcomes. METHODS: INTERMACS database identified patients undergoing primary CF-LVAD implantation from 2008 to 2017. HRAEs included stroke, non-surgical bleeding, hemolysis, and pump thrombosis and were identified as defined in the literature. HRAEs were further stratified as Tier 1-2 and disabling stroke events. Time-series analysis was executed for HRAE patients with values pre-HRAE, post-HRAE, and closest to 12 months follow up. Local polynomial regression curves modeling individual patients were superimposed into "spaghetti" plots. RESULTS: All HRQOL and functional metrics improved in patients over time, despite HRAE complications. However, these patient metrics were significantly reduced compared to the non-HRAE cohort. Advanced data visualization techniques noted a decline after experiencing an HRAE with a subsequent recovery to baseline levels or higher. Six-minute walk test (6MWT) was noted to be most affected in the post-HRAE period but recovered similar to other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of HRAE following CF-LVAD implantation did not negatively impact the quality of life. However, the 6MWT did not increase in the post-HRAE period in all HRAE patients. Improvement of heart failure symptoms after CF-LVAD coupled with optimal management following the HRAE act to preserve the enhanced quality of life.

Determining optimal donor heart ischemic times in adult cardiac transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Unsupervised statistical determination of optimal allograft ischemic time (IT) on heart transplant outcomes among ABO donor heart types. METHODS: We identified 36,145 heart transplants (2000-2018) from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed with parametric and nonparametric testing. Determination of IT cutoffs for survival analysis was performed using Contal and O'Quigley univariable method and Vito Muggeo multivariable segmented modeling. RESULTS: Univariable and multivariable IT threshold determination revealed a cutoff at about 3 h. The hourly increase in survival risk with ≥3 h IT is asymmetrically experienced at the early 90 days (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29, p < .001) and up to 1-year time point (HR = 1.16, p < .001). Beyond 1 year the risk of prolonged IT is less impactful (HR = 1.04, p = .022). Longer IT was associated with more postoperative complications such as stroke (2.7% vs. 2.3, p = .042), dialysis (11.6% vs. 9.1%, p < .001) and death from primary graft dysfunction (1.8% vs. 1.2%, p < .001). O blood type donor hearts with IT ≥ 3 h has significantly increased hourly mortality risk at 90 days (HR = 1.27, p < .001), 90 days to 1 year (HR = 1.22, p < .001) and >1 year (HR = 1.05, p = .041). For non-O blood types with ≥3 h IT hourly mortality risk was increased at 90 days (HR = 1.33, p < .001), but not at 90 days to 1 year (HR = 1.09, p = .146) nor ≥1 year (HR = 1.08, p = .237). CONCLUSIONS: The donor heart IT threshold for survival determined from unbiased statistical modeling occurs at 3 h. With longer preservation times, transplantation with O donor hearts was associated with worse survival.

Reduced Echocardiographic Inotropy Index after Cardiopulmonary Bypass Is Associated With Complications After Cardiac Surgery: An Institutional Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring, limited progress has been made to effectively quantify left ventricular function during cardiac surgery. Traditional measures, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac index, remain dependent on loading conditions; more complex measures remain impractical in a dynamic surgical setting. However, the Smith-Madigan Inotropy Index (SMII) and potential-to-kinetic energy ratio (PKR) offer promise as measures calculable during cardiac surgery and potentially predictive of outcomes. Using echocardiographic and hemodynamic monitoring data, the authors aimed to calculate SMII and PKR values after cardiopulmonary bypass and understand associations with postoperative outcomes, adjusting for previously identified risk factors. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: The study comprised 189 elective adult cardiac surgical procedures from 2015-2016. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was postoperative mortality or organ system complication (stroke, prolonged ventilation, reintubation, cardiac arrest, acute kidney injury, new-onset atrial fibrillation). After adjustment, SMII <0.83 W/m2 independently predicted the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.08-4.42); whereas PKR, LVEF, and cardiac index demonstrated no associations. When SMII and PKR were incorporated into a EuroSCORE II risk model, predictive performance improved (net reclassification index improvement 0.457; p = 0.001); whereas a model incorporating LVEF and cardiac index demonstrated no improvement (0.130; p = 0.318). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that SMII, but not PKR, as a measure of cardiac function was associated with major complications. The study's data may guide investigations of more suitable perioperative goal-directed therapies to reduce complications after cardiac surgery.

Fate of preoperative moderate mitral regurgitation following left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVE: We examined for improvements in preoperative moderate mitral regurgitation following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) implantation. METHODS: From 2006 to 2020, 190 patients with moderate MR underwent cfVLAD implant without concomitant mitral valve (MV) surgery. Cardiac dimensions and contractility, as well as valve function, were assessed with an echocardiogram (echo) pre-cfLVAD, and at approximately 1 month post-cfLVAD. Outcomes were determined by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Median echo follow-up was 0.94 (0.53, 1.38) months. Residual significant moderate or greater MR was present in 30/190 (15.8%) on follow-up. Patients with significant residual MR had larger preoperative left ventricular internal diameters in diastole (74.4 ± 8.7 vs. 71.1.0 ± 9.1 mm, p = .034). Significant residual MR was associated with higher preoperative mean pulmonary artery pressures (OR = 1.055, p = .035) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures (OR = 1.060, p = .034). Significant residual MR on echo was not associated with any survival difference (p = .325). The 1, 5, and 10 year survival were 89.9%, 55.2%, and 34.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate MR undergoing LVAD implantation, the likelihood of significant residual MR is low and mitral intervention in this population is not recommended. However, select patients with larger preoperative left heart dimensions and pulmonary vascular pressures may be at risk for persistent residual MR.

Risk factors for heart transplant survival with greater than 5 h of donor heart ischemic time.

OBJECTIVE: Implantation of donor hearts with prolonged ischemic times is associated with worse survival. We sought to identify risk factors that modulate the effects of prolonged preservation. METHODS: Retrospective review of the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2000-2018) to identify transplants with >5 (n = 1526) or ≤5 h (n = 35,733) of donor heart preservation. In transplanted hearts preserved for >5 h, Cox-proportional hazards identify modifiers for survival. RESULTS: Compared to ≤5 h, transplanted patients with >5 h of preservation spent less time in status 1B (76 ± 160 vs. 85 ± 173 days, p = .027), more commonly had ischemic cardiomyopathy (42.3% vs. 38.3%, p = .002), and less commonly received a blood type O heart (45.4% vs. 50.8%, p < .001). Longer heart preservation time was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative stroke (4.5% vs. 2.5%, p < .001), and dialysis (16.4% vs. 10.6%, p < .001). Prolonged preservation was associated with a greater likelihood of death from primary graft dysfunction (2.8% vs. 1.5%, p < .001) but there was no difference in death from acute (2.0% vs. 1.7%, p = .402) or chronic rejection (2.0% vs. 1.9%, p = .618). In transplanted patients with >5 h of heart preservation, multivariable analysis identified greater mortality with ischemic cardiomyopathy etiology (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.36, p < 0.01), pre-transplant dialysis (HR = 1.84, p < .01), pre-transplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO, HR = 2.36, p = .09), and O blood type donor hearts (HR = 1.35, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Preservation time >5 h is associated with worse survival. This mortality risk is further amplified by preoperative dialysis and ECMO, ischemic cardiomyopathy etiology, and use of O blood type donor hearts.

Device Therapy and Arrhythmia Management in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common, predispose these patients to additional risk, and complicate patient management. However, there is no consensus on best practices for the medical management of these arrhythmias or on the optimal timing for procedural interventions in patients with refractory arrhythmias. Although the vast majority of these patients have preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy, given the natural history of heart failure, it is common practice to maintain cardiovascular implantable electronic device detection and therapies after LVAD implantation. Available data, however, are conflicting on the efficacy of and optimal device programming after LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this scientific statement is to review the available evidence and to provide guidance on the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in this unique patient population, as well as procedural interventions and cardiovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies, on the basis of a comprehensive literature review by electrophysiologists, heart failure cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiovascular nurse specialists with expertise in managing these patients. The structure and design of commercially available LVADs are briefly reviewed, as well as clinical indications for device implantation. The relevant physiological effects of long-term exposure to continuous-flow circulatory support are highlighted, as well as the mechanisms and clinical significance of arrhythmias in the setting of LVAD support.

Intrapericardial Left Ventricular Assist Device for Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. We compared a newer LVAD design (a small intrapericardial centrifugal-flow device) against existing technology (a commercially available axial-flow device) in patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial involving 446 patients who were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to the study (centrifugal-flow) device or the control (axial-flow) device. Adults who met contemporary criteria for LVAD implantation for permanent use were eligible to participate in the trial. The primary end point was survival at 2 years free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. The trial was powered to show noninferiority with a margin of 15 percentage points. RESULTS: The intention-to treat-population included 297 participants assigned to the study device and 148 participants assigned to the control device. The primary end point was achieved in 164 patients in the study group and 85 patients in the control group. The analysis of the primary end point showed noninferiority of the study device relative to the control device (estimated success rates, 55.4% and 59.1%, respectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper confidence limit, 12.56 percentage points; P=0.01 for noninferiority). More patients in the control group than in the study group had device malfunction or device failure requiring replacement (16.2% vs. 8.8%), and more patients in the study group had strokes (29.7% vs. 12.1%). Quality of life and functional capacity improved to a similar degree in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow LVAD was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. (Funded by HeartWare; ENDURANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166347 .).

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Circulatory Pump for Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist systems increase the rate of survival among patients with advanced heart failure but are associated with the development of pump thrombosis. We investigated the effects of a new magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow pump that was engineered to avert thrombosis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the new centrifugal continuous-flow pump or a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump. Patients could be enrolled irrespective of the intended goal of pump support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The primary end point was a composite of survival free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove the device at 6 months after implantation. The trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points). RESULTS: Of 294 patients, 152 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 142 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 131 patients (86.2%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group and in 109 (76.8%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 9.4 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, -2.1 [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.95 [two-tailed P=0.04 for superiority]). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death or disabling stroke, but reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (1 [0.7%] vs. 11 [7.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.60; P=0.002). Suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis occurred in no patients in the centrifugal-flow pump group and in 14 patients (10.1%) in the axial-flow pump group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced heart failure, implantation of a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was associated with better outcomes at 6 months than was implantation of an axial-flow pump, primarily because of the lower rate of reoperation for pump malfunction. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755 .).

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.

Evaluation and Management of Right-Sided Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The diverse causes of right-sided heart failure (RHF) include, among others, primary cardiomyopathies with right ventricular (RV) involvement, RV ischemia and infarction, volume loading caused by cardiac lesions associated with congenital heart disease and valvular pathologies, and pressure loading resulting from pulmonic stenosis or pulmonary hypertension from a variety of causes, including left-sided heart disease. Progressive RV dysfunction in these disease states is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this scientific statement is to provide guidance on the assessment and management of RHF. METHODS: The writing group used systematic literature reviews, published translational and clinical studies, clinical practice guidelines, and expert opinion/statements to summarize existing evidence and to identify areas of inadequacy requiring future research. The panel reviewed the most relevant adult medical literature excluding routine laboratory tests using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science through September 2017. The document is organized and classified according to the American Heart Association to provide specific suggestions, considerations, or reference to contemporary clinical practice recommendations. RESULTS: Chronic RHF is associated with decreased exercise tolerance, poor functional capacity, decreased cardiac output and progressive end-organ damage (caused by a combination of end-organ venous congestion and underperfusion), and cachexia resulting from poor absorption of nutrients, as well as a systemic proinflammatory state. It is the principal cause of death in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Similarly, acute RHF is associated with hemodynamic instability and is the primary cause of death in patients presenting with massive pulmonary embolism, RV myocardial infarction, and postcardiotomy shock associated with cardiac surgery. Functional assessment of the right side of the heart can be hindered by its complex geometry. Multiple hemodynamic and biochemical markers are associated with worsening RHF and can serve to guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision making. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions targeting isolated acute and chronic RHF have not been well investigated. Specific therapies promoting stabilization and recovery of RV function are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: RHF is a complex syndrome including diverse causes, pathways, and pathological processes. In this scientific statement, we review the causes and epidemiology of RV dysfunction and the pathophysiology of acute and chronic RHF and provide guidance for the management of the associated conditions leading to and caused by RHF.

High Transpulmonary Artery Gradient Obtained at the Time of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Negatively Affects Survival After Cardiac Transplantation.

AIM: Preoperatively elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is a contraindication to heart transplantation (HT). Transpulmonary pressure gradient (TPG) is one of the main variables used in PVR determination (ie, PVR = TPG/cardiac output). Unlike PVR, which is subject to the shortcoming of cardiac output estimation, TPG is directly measured. We aimed to evaluate the relationship of TPG obtained before left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on post-HT survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were implanted with Heartmate II LVADs in the multicenter Heartmate II Bridge-to-Transplantation clinical trial, and 416/490 had pre-LVAD TPG data available. Outcomes during LVAD support and after HT stratified by both PVR and TPG were studied. The median pre-LVAD TPG was 10 mm Hg. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar for patients with and without TPG >10 mm Hg. Outcomes during LVAD support (ie, recovery to LVAD explantation, HT, or ongoing device support) for patients below and above the median TPG were similar. However, post-HT 1-year survival rate was significantly higher for patients with TPG ≤10 mm Hg compared with those with TPG >10 mm Hg (91% vs 80%; P = .016). Analysis based on the median PVR of 2.68 Wood units did not stratify post-HTx 1-year survival rates between the groups (89% vs 83%; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated TPG, rather than high PVR, before LVAD implantation was associated with increased mortality following HT. Pre-LVAD TPG may be useful to identify a cohort that requires close follow-up with serial hemodynamic monitoring before HT.