Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Heart Failure Management Reduces Hospitalizations in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic-guided heart failure management is a superior strategy to prevent decompensation leading to hospitalization compared with traditional clinical methods. It remains unstudied if hemodynamic-guided care is effective across severities of comorbid renal insufficiency or if this strategy impacts renal function over time. METHODS: In the CardioMEMS US PAS (Post-Approval Study), heart failure hospitalizations were compared from 1 year before and after pulmonary artery sensor implantation in 1200 patients with New York Heart Association class III symptoms and a previous hospitalization. Hospitalization rates were evaluated in all patients grouped into baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) quartiles. Chronic kidney disease progression was evaluated in patients with renal function follow-up data (n=911). RESULTS: Patients with stage 2 or greater chronic kidney disease at baseline exceeded 80%. Heart failure hospitalization risk was lower in all eGFR quartiles ranging from a hazard ratio of 0.35 (0.27-0.46; P<0.0001) in patients with eGFR >65 mL/min per 1.73 m2 to 0.53 (0.45-0.62; P<0.0001) in patients with eGFR ≤37 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Renal function was preserved or improved in most patients. Survival was different between quartiles and lower in quartiles with more advanced chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic-guided heart failure management using remotely obtained pulmonary artery pressures is associated with lower hospitalization rates and general preservation of renal function in all eGFR quartiles or chronic kidney disease stages.

A comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of cardiac contractility modulation on functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life.

AIMS: Cardiac contractility modulation, also referred to as CCM™, has emerged as a promising device treatment for heart failure (HF) in patients not indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy. We performed a comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis of all non-confounded prospective randomized controlled trials of CCM vs. control that have measured functional capacity and/or quality of life questionnaires in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched in January 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. We also asked the sole manufacturer of the device for their list of known trials. Primary outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2 ), 6 min walk test distance, and quality of life measured by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ), and all data were received as individual patient and individual time point data-points. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data using a fixed-effects model. Five trials were identified, four randomized studies enrolling 801 participants for all endpoints of interest, and for peak VO2 alone (n = 60), there was an additional single arm non-randomized trial (FIX-HF-5C2) with a prospective comparison of its 24 week peak VO2 data compared with the control group of the FIX-HF-5C control patients. Pooled analysis showed that, compared with control, CCM significantly improved peak VO2 (mean difference +0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.30 mL/kg/min, P < 0.00001), 6 min walk test distance (mean difference +17.97, 95% CI 5.48 to 30.46 m, P = 0.005), and quality of life measured by MLWHFQ (mean difference -7.85, 95% CI -10.76 to -4.94, P < 0.00001). As a sensitivity analysis, we excluded the FIX-HF-5C2 trial (only relevant for peak VO2 ), and the result was similar, mean difference +0.65, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.08 mL/kg/min, P = 0.004. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive meta-analysis of individual patient data from all known randomized trials has shown that CCM provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits in measures of functional capacity and HF-related quality of life.

Association of Clinical Outcomes With Left Ventricular Assist Device Use by Bridge to Transplant or Destination Therapy Intent: The Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are well established in the treatment of advanced heart failure, but it is unclear whether outcomes are different based on the intended goal of therapy in patients who are eligible vs ineligible for heart transplant. Objective: To determine whether clinical outcomes in the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial differed by preoperative categories of bridge to transplant (BTT) or bridge to transplant candidacy (BTC) vs destination therapy (DT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a prespecified secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD to the axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) pump. It was conducted in 69 centers with expertise in managing patients with advanced heart failure in the United States. Patients with advanced heart failure were randomized to an LVAD, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy (BTT/BTC or DT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device at 2 years. Secondary end points included adverse events, functional status, and quality of life. Results: Of the 1020 patients with implants (515 with HM3 devices [50.5%] and 505 with HMII devices [49.5%]), 396 (38.8%) were in the BTT/BTC group (mean [SD] age, 55 [12] years; 310 men [78.3%]) and 624 (61.2%) in the DT group (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 513 men [82.2%]). Of the patients initially deemed as transplant ineligible, 84 of 624 patients (13.5%) underwent heart transplant within 2 years of LVAD implant. In the primary end point analysis, HM3 use was superior to HMII use in patients in the BTT/BTC group (76.8% vs 67.3% for survival free of disabling stroke and reoperation; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]; log-rank P = .02) and patients in the DT group (73.2% vs 58.7%; hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.81]; log-rank P < .001). For patients in both BTT/BTC and DT groups, there were not significantly different reductions in rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding with HM3 use relative to HMII use. Improvements in quality of life and functional capacity for either pump were not significantly different regardless of preimplant strategy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the superior treatment effect of HM3 over HMII was similar for patients in the BTT/BTC or DT groups. It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02224755.

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.).

Outcomes of patients implanted with a left ventricular assist device at nontransplant mechanical circulatory support centers.

The goal of this study was to assess outcomes of patients who underwent implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) at nontransplantation mechanical circulatory support centers. As the availability of LVADs for advanced heart failure has expanded to nontransplantation mechanical circulatory support centers, concerns have been expressed about maintaining good outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were evaluated in 276 patients with advanced heart failure who underwent implantation of LVADs as bridge to transplantation or destination therapy at 27 open-heart centers. Baseline characteristics, operative mortality, length of stay, readmission rate, adverse events, quality of life, and survival were analyzed. The overall 30-day mortality was 3% (8 of 276), and survival rates at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, were 92±2%, 88±3%, and 84±4% for the bridge-to-transplantation group and 81±3%, 70±5%, and 63±6% for the destination therapy group, comparable with results published by the national Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS). The median length of stay for all patients was 21 days. Bleeding was the most frequent adverse event. Stroke occurred in 4% (bridge to transplantation) and 6% (destination therapy) of patients. Quality-of-life measures and 6-minute walk distances showed sustained improvements throughout support. In conclusion, outcomes with LVAD support at open-heart centers are acceptable and comparable with results from the INTERMACS registry. With appropriate teams, training, center commitment, and certification, LVAD therapy is being disseminated in a responsible way to open-heart centers.

Safety and accuracy of a wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Implantable hemodynamic monitoring to guide heart failure (HF) therapy is a promising area of active research. The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the safety and technical performance of a novel wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system in 17 patients with symptomatic HF. METHODS: The monitoring system consists of a sensor, delivery catheter, interrogator, and home monitoring device. The HF sensor was implanted into a distal branch of the pulmonary artery. Pulmonary artery pressures were monitored using the external device, which powers the HF sensor and transmits the hemodynamic data from the patient's home to a secure Internet database. The accuracy of the system was assessed by comparison with standard right heart catheterization (RHC). RESULTS: The HF sensor was safely and successfully implanted in all patients. Agreement between the HF sensor and RHC for systolic, diastolic, and mean pulmonary artery pressures was excellent, with correlation coefficients of 0.94, 0.85, and 0.95, respectively (all P < .0001). Using Bland-Altman plots, the average differences for systolic, diastolic, and mean pulmonary artery pressures for the HF sensor vs RHC were -4.4 ± 0.3, 2.5 ± 1.0, and -0.8 ± 1.3 mm Hg, respectively. There were no serious device-related adverse events. A postmortem analysis of the HF sensor in a patient who died 12 months after implant demonstrated complete endothelialization and no evidence of thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: This trial supports the safety and accuracy of this pulmonary artery pressure monitoring system in patients with HF and the conduct of randomized trials of implantable hemodynamic monitoring in HF, using this system.

A novel percutaneous mechanical biventricular bridge to recovery in severe cardiac allograft rejection.

We describe the case of a 36-year-old man with acute cardiac transplant rejection bridged to recovery using simultaneous Impella 2.5 and TandemHeart percutaneous support devices. The patient underwent orthotopic cardiac transplantation 2 years earlier, and presented to our hospital with allograft failure 7 days after non-compliance with tacrolimus. Because of persistent cardiogenic shock despite intra-aortic balloon and inotropic support, we implanted an Impella 2.5 percutaneous assist device for left ventricular support. Persistent right ventricular dysfunction necessitated insertion of a TandemHeart for right ventricular support. After a course of intravenous solumedrol and anti-thymocyte globulin, both the Impella and TandemHeart devices were successfully weaned and removed. Nine months later, his left ventricular ejection fraction had stabilized from 10% to 55%.

Multicenter evaluation of noninvasive cardiac output measurement by bioreactance technique.

OBJECTIVES: Bioreactance, the analysis of intrabeat variations in phase of a transthoracic voltage in response to an applied high frequency transthoracic current, was recently introduced for noninvasive cardiac output measurement (NICOM). We evaluated NICOM compared to thermo- dilution (TD) in several clinical settings. METHODS: 111 patients with a clinical indication for TD cardiac output (CO) measurement were recruited at five centers, including patients in cardiac catheterization laboratories, cardiac care units and intensive care units. CO measurements were made simulta- neously with TD and the bioreactance method and compared by regression analysis. RESULTS: For studies in the intensive care units, TD-based CO and NICOM were highly correlated (r = 0.78, P < 0.0001) and did not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.55). Results in the cardiac catheterization laboratory were similar (r = 0.71, P < 0.001; P = 0.28 NICOM versus TD). In subsets of patients, NICOM was shown to be better corre- lated with TD-CO than CO obtained with the Fick method or with standard bioimpedance-based measurements of CO. CONCLUSIONS: On average, compared to TD, bioreactance- based NICOM has acceptable accuracy in challenging clinical environments. Availability of such a tool may allow clinicians to have information about CO in patients where this information is not currently available to help diagnosis and guide therapy.

Nonexcitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses: feasibility study for advanced heart failure in patients with normal QRS duration.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac contractility modulation signals are associated with acutely improved hemodynamics, but chronic clinical impact is not defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, pilot study was to determine the feasibility of safely and effectively delivering cardiac contractility modulation signals in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Forty-nine subjects with ejection fraction <35%, normal QRS duration (105 +/- 15 ms), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure despite medical therapy received a cardiac contractility modulation pulse generator. Patients were randomized to have their devices programmed to deliver cardiac contractility modulation signals (n = 25, treatment group) or to remain off (n = 24, control group) for 6 months. Evaluations included NYHA class, 6-minute walk, cardiopulmonary stress test, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and Holter monitoring. RESULTS: Although most baseline features were balanced between groups, ejection fraction (31.4% +/- 7.4% vs 24.9% +/- 6.5%, P = .003), end-diastolic dimension (52.1 +/- 21.4 mm vs 62.5 +/- 6.2 mm, P = .01), peak VO(2) (16.0 +/- 2.9 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 14.3 +/- 2.8 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .02), and anaerobic threshold (12.3 +/- 2.5 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 10.6 +/- 2.4 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .01) were worse in the treatment group than in the control group. Nevertheless, one death occurred in the control group, and more patients in the treatment group were free of hospitalization for any cause at 6 months (84% vs 62%). No change in ectopy was observed. Compared with baseline, 6-minute walk (13.4 m), peak VO(2) (0.2 mL O(2)/kg/min), and anaerobic threshold (0.8 mL O(2)/kg/min) increased more in the treatment group than in control. None of these differences were statistically significant (small sample size). NYHA and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire changed similarly in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite a sicker population in the treatment group, no specific safety concerns emerged with chronic cardiac contractility modulation signal administration. Further study is required to definitively define the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation signals.