Accuracy of Doppler blood pressure measurement in HeartMate 3 ventricular assist device patients.

AIMS: Optimal blood pressure (BP) control is imperative to reduce complications, especially strokes, in continuous flow ventricular assist device (VAD) patients. Doppler BP has been shown to be an accurate and reliable non-invasive BP measurement method in HeartMate II and HVAD patients. We examined whether Doppler BP is also accurate in patients with the HeartMate 3 VAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective, longitudinal cohort of HeartMate 3 patients, arterial line BP and simultaneously measured Doppler opening pressure were obtained. Correlation and agreement between Doppler opening pressure and arterial line mean arterial pressure (MAP) versus systolic blood pressure (SBP) were analysed, as well as the effect of pulse pressure on the accuracy of Doppler opening pressure. A total of 589 pairs of simultaneous Doppler opening pressure and arterial line pressure readings were obtained in 43 patients. Doppler opening pressure had good correlation with intra-arterial MAP (r = 0.754) and more closely approximated MAP than SBP (mean error 2.0 vs. -8.6 mmHg). Pulse pressure did not have a clinically significant impact on the accuracy of the Doppler BP method. These results in HeartMate 3 patients are very similar to previous results in HeartMate II and HVAD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler BP method should be the default non-invasive BP measurement method in continuous flow VAD patients including patients implanted with the HeartMate 3.

Responding to Ventricular Assist Device Recalls: An Ethical Guide for Mechanical Circulatory Support Programs.

We discuss the ethical responsibilities of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) programs in the context of cardiac device recalls, particularly the near-simultaneous recalls of Abbott HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (VAD) and Medtronic HVAD devices in 2018. We consider MCS programs' ethical responsibilities toward patients who already have VADs and their caregivers, as well as the impact of recalls on informed consent and shared decision-making in patients under consideration for new VADs. Timely communication to affected patients is imperative throughout the recall process. MCS programs are required to notify existing VAD patients about the nature and likelihood of risk. A press release from the device manufacturer or other press reports may occur before MCS teams learn about the recall. This leads to a disclosure gap, where the programs are actively deciding on an appropriate action plan while simultaneously fielding patient concerns. From an ethics standpoint, if all device users are owed the recall information from the manufacturer, all patients are owed the information from their treating team. The question is what to disclose specifically, and how.

Comparison of Neurologic Event Rates Among HeartMate II, HeartMate 3, and HVAD.

Strokes remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs). Varying study populations, event definitions, and reporting methods make direct comparison of neurologic event risk across clinical trials and registries challenging. We aim to highlight important differences among major VAD studies and standardize rates of neurologic events to facilitate a comprehensive and objective comparison. We systematically identified and analyzed key clinical trials and registries evaluating the HeartMate II (HMII), HeartMate 3 (HM3), and HVAD devices. Reported neurologic events were nonexclusively categorized into ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, disabling stroke, fatal stroke, and other neurologic events per the studies' definitions. Event rates were standardized to events per patient-year (EPPY) and freedom from event formats. Seven key clinical trials and registries were included in our analysis. There is significant variation and overlap in neurologic event rates for the three VAD platforms across clinical trials (all neurologic events [EPPY]: HM3 0.17-0.21; HMII 0.19-0.26; HVAD 0.16-0.28). None performs consistently better for all types of neurologic events. Furthermore, stroke rates among VAD trials correlated with baseline stroke risk factors including ischemic etiology, history of atrial fibrillation, and history of prior stroke.

Accuracy of Doppler blood pressure measurement in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients.

AIMS: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement in continuous-flow ventricular assist device (CF-VAD) patients is imperative to reduce stroke risk. This study assesses the accuracy of the Doppler opening pressure method compared with the gold standard arterial line method in CF-VAD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a longitudinal cohort of HeartMate II and HVAD patients, arterial line BP and simultaneously measured Doppler opening pressure were obtained. Overall correlation, agreement between Doppler opening pressure and arterial line mean vs. systolic pressure, and the effect of arterial pulsatility on the accuracy of Doppler opening pressure were analysed. A total of 1933 pairs of Doppler opening pressure and arterial line pressure readings within 1 min of each other were identified in 154 patients (20% women, mean age 55 ± 15, 50% HeartMate II and 50% HVAD). Doppler opening pressure had good correlation with invasive mean arterial pressure (r = 0.742, P < 0.0001) and more closely approximated mean than systolic BP (mean error 2.4 vs. -8.4 mmHg). Arterial pulsatility did not have a clinically significant effect on the accuracy of the Doppler opening pressure method. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler opening pressure should be the standard non-invasive method of BP measurement in CF-VAD patients.

The ethical conundrum: Conflicting advocacy positions in advanced heart failure therapy.

It is estimated that nearly 6.5 million Americans over the age of 20 suffer from heart failure. Heart failure is the leading cause of hospitalization in patients over 65 years of age, and carries with it a 5-year mortality of nearly 50%. Despite advances in medical therapy, treatment for medically refractory end-stage, advanced heart failure is limited to heart transplant, mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or palliative care only. Patient selection in advanced heart failure (AHF) therapy is complex. Not only are the patients medically complicated, but providers are biased by their individual and collective experience with similar and dissimilar patients. Clinicians caring for AHF patients balance competing clinical and ethical demands, which appropriately leads to professional debate and disagreement. These debates are constructive because they clarify ethical and professional commitments and help to ensure fair and equitable treatment of AHF patients.