Transplantation Outcomes with Donor Hearts after Circulatory Death.

BACKGROUND: Data showing the efficacy and safety of the transplantation of hearts obtained from donors after circulatory death as compared with hearts obtained from donors after brain death are limited. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial in which adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group). The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation; 90 (assigned to the circulatory-death group) received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 (regardless of group assignment) received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor). The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88 to 99) among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% (95% CI, 84 to 97) among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (least-squares mean difference, -3 percentage points; 90% CI, -10 to 3; P<0.001 for noninferiority [margin, 20 percentage points]). There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, risk-adjusted survival at 6 months after transplantation with a donor heart that had been reanimated and assessed with the use of extracorporeal nonischemic perfusion after circulatory death was not inferior to that after standard-care transplantation with a donor heart that had been preserved with the use of cold storage after brain death. (Funded by TransMedics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03831048.).

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.).

Rationale and design of a randomized trial evaluating an external support device for saphenous vein coronary grafts.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the most common revascularization approach for the treatment of multi-vessel coronary artery disease. While the internal mammary artery is nearly universally used to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery, autologous saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) are still the most frequently used conduits to grafts the remaining coronary artery targets. Long-term failure of these grafts, however, continues to limit the benefits of surgery. METHODS: The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial of the safety and effectiveness of a Venous External Support (VEST) device is a randomized, multicenter, within-patient trial comparing VEST-supported versus unsupported saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing CABG. Key inclusion criteria are the need for CABG with a planned internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending and two or more saphenous vein grafts to other coronary arteries. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial is SVG intimal hyperplasia (plaque + media) area assessed by intravascular ultrasound at 12 months post randomization. Occluded grafts are accounted for in the analysis of the primary endpoint. Secondary confirmatory endpoints are lumen diameter uniformity and graft failure (>50% stenosis) assessed by coronary angiography at 12 months. The safety endpoints are the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and hospitalization within 5 years from randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the VEST trial will determine whether the VEST device can safely limit SVG intimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing CABG as treatment for coronary atherosclerotic disease.

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.

Outcomes by cannulation methods for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during COVID-19: A multicenter retrospective study.

In a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 435 patients with refractory COVID-19 placed on V-V ECMO, cannulation by a single, dual-lumen catheter with directed outflow to the pulmonary artery was associated with lower inpatient mortality.

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Supported by Venoarterial or Veno-Arterial-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac injury has been reported in up to 20%-to-30% of patients with COVID-19, and severe disease can lead to cardiopulmonary failure. The role of mechanical circulatory support in these patients remains undetermined. The authors here aimed to determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 requiring venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) or veno-arterial-venous (VAV) ECMO support. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multicenter, retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort consisted of adult patients (18 years of age and older) with confirmed COVID-19 requiring VA ECMO or VAV ECMO support in the period from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Outcomes were recorded until July 31, 2021. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To show factors related to death during hospitalization, patients were grouped as survivors and nonsurvivors. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate 90-day in-hospital mortality. Overall, 37 patients from 12 centers comprised the study cohort. The median patient age was 44 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 35-52), and 12 (32%) were female patients. The duration of ECMO support ranged from 2-to-132 days. At the end of the follow-up period, 13 patients (35%) were discharged or transferred alive, and 24 patients (65%) died during the hospitalization. The cumulative in-hospital mortality at 90 days was 64% (95% confidence interval: 47-81). During the time from intubation to VA ECMO or VAV ECMO initiation (1 day [IQR 0-7.5] v 6 days [IQR 2.5-14], p = 0.0383), body mass index (32 [IQR 26-36] v 37 [IQR 33-40], p = 0.009), and baseline C-reactive protein (7.15 v 38.9 mg/dL, p = 0.009) were higher in those who expired. CONCLUSION: Only one-third of the patients with COVID-19 requiring VA ECMO or VAV ECMO survived to discharge. Close monitoring of at-risk patients with early initiation of ECMO with circulatory support may further improve outcomes.

Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Fully Magnetically Levitated vs Axial-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices in the MOMENTUM 3 Randomized Trial.

Importance: Although durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has emerged as an important treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to pharmacological support, outcomes, including survival, beyond 2 years remain poorly characterized. Objective: To report the composite end point of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke (Modified Rankin Scale score >3) or reoperation to replace the pump 5 years after the implant in participants who received the fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 or axial-flow HeartMate II LVAD in the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial and were still receiving LVAD therapy at the 2-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study was a 5-year follow-up of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, conducted in 69 US centers, that demonstrated superiority of the centrifugal-flow LVAD to the axial-flow pump with respect to survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump at 2 years. A total of 295 patients were enrolled between June 2019 to April 2021 in the extended-phase study, with 5-year follow-up completed in September 2021. Exposures: Of 1020 patients in the investigational device exemption per-protocol population, 536 were still receiving LVAD support at 2 years, of whom 289 received the centrifugal-flow pump and 247 received the axial-flow pump. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 10 end points evaluated at 5 years in the per-protocol population, including a composite of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump between the centrifugal-flow and axial-flow pump groups and overall survival between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 477 patients (295 enrolled and 182 provided limited data) of 536 patients still receiving LVAD support at 2 years contributed to the extended-phase analysis (median age, 62 y; 86 [18%] women). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival to transplant, recovery, or LVAD support free of debilitating stroke or reoperation to replace the pump in the centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow group was 54.0% vs 29.7% (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P < .001). Overall Kaplan-Meier survival was 58.4% in the centrifugal-flow group vs 43.7% in the axial-flow group (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.89]; P = .003). Serious adverse events of stroke, bleeding, and pump thrombosis were less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational follow-up study of patients from the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial, per-protocol analyses found that receipt of a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow LVAD vs axial-flow LVAD was associated with a better composite outcome and higher likelihood of overall survival at 5 years. These findings support the use of the fully magnetically levitated LVAD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02224755 and NCT03982979.

Protocol endomyocardial biopsy beyond 6 months-It is time to move on.

The optimal duration and frequency of routine surveillance endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) have been questioned in the current era of heart transplantation (HT), where the advances in immunosuppression and donor selection strategies have led to a decline in acute allograft rejection. We investigated the utility of routine EMB beyond 6 months post-HT. A single-center retrospective review was performed on 2963 EMBs from 220 HT recipients over 10 years. Each EMB was categorized into protocol or symptom-triggered biopsy and reviewed for rejection. Heart transplant recipients with ≥2 known risk factors for rejection were designated as an elevated risk group. The majority of rejections occurred within 3 months following HT. The yield of routine protocol EMBs was significantly lower than symptom-triggered EMBs, not only during the first 6 months post-HT (1.6% vs. 33.3%, P < .0001), but more so during the 6-12 months (0.1% vs 83.0%, P < .0001). A similar pattern was observed in heart transplant recipients at both elevated and standard risk for rejection. In conclusion, EMB was found to be a low-yield screening modality for rejection beyond 6 months post-HT.

Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In an early analysis of this trial, use of a magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow circulatory pump was found to improve clinical outcomes, as compared with a mechanical-bearing axial continuous-flow pump, at 6 months in patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: In a randomized noninferiority and superiority trial, we compared the centrifugal-flow pump with the axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score of >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The noninferiority margin for the risk difference (centrifugal-flow pump group minus axial-flow pump group) was -10 percentage points. RESULTS: Of 366 patients, 190 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 176 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (79.5%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 106 (60.2%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, 9.8 percentage points [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.69 [P<0.001 for superiority]). Reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (3 patients [1.6%] vs. 30 patients [17.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P<0.001). The rates of death and disabling stroke were similar in the two groups, but the overall rate of stroke was lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (10.1% vs. 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.84, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was superior to a mechanical-bearing axial-flow pump with regard to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755 .).

De Novo Renal Failure and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes associated with concomitant renal and respiratory failure in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: This is a case series of patients from a U.S. healthcare system in New York City. All adult patients (≥ 18 yr) admitted to the hospital with positive coronavirus disease 2019 testing between March 10, 2020, and March 31, 2020, who required mechanical ventilatory support were included. Patients who remained hospitalized were followed through May 1, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Renal replacement therapy included at least one session of dialysis, continued venovenous hemofiltration, or peritoneal dialysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, laboratory markers, 30-day in-hospital outcomes, ventilator days, and survival to discharge were included. Multivariate predictors for mortality and need for renal replacement therapy were identified. A total of 330 patients were included in this analysis and were most commonly greater than or equal to 70 years (40%), male (61%), Black or African American (41%), and Hispanic or Latino (38%). Renal replacement therapy was required in 101 patients (29%), most commonly among Blacks or African Americans (50%). Elevated d-dimer, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were associated with renal replacement therapy, compared with the nondialysis cohort. Overall, 243 patients (74%) died and 56 (17%) were discharged from the hospital, of which 9 (3%) required renal replacement therapy. Male sex (odds ratio, 2.0; 1.1-3.5; p = 0.020), Black race (odds ratio, 1.8; 1.0-3.1; p = 0.453), and history of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.7; 1.3-5.4; p = 0.005) were predictors for requiring renal replacement therapy. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality included age greater than or equal to 60 years (odds ratio, 6.2; 3.0-13.0; p < 0.0001), male sex (odds ratio, 3.0; 1.4-6.4; p = 0.004), and body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 (odds ratio, 2.1; 1.0-4.4; p = 0.039). Concomitant renal failure in critical coronavirus disease 2019 was not a significant predictor of death (odds ratio, 2.3; 0.98-5.5; p = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: This case series concludes that respiratory failure conveys significant mortality risk in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and that survival with concomitant renal failure is rare.

Outflow graft obstruction in patients with the HM 3 LVAD: A percutaneous approach.

BACKGROUND: The use of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is expanding. Despite being associated with lower rates of adverse events and increased survival, outflow graft obstruction (OGO) has been reported in patients with HM3. The incidence and best management of this serious complication remain unclear. METHODS: We describe six cases of HM3 OGO occurring in five patients in our institutional HM3 cohort. Four cases underwent computed tomography angiography and in two percutaneous angiography was directly performed to confirm the diagnosis. In four cases, percutaneous repair of the OG was performed using common interventional cardiology (IC) techniques. RESULTS: Our institutional incidence of OGO was 7% (event rate of 0.05 per patient year); much higher than the previously reported incidence of 1.6%. All cases occurred in the bend relief covered segment. Only two patients had apparent OG twisting, and in two, OGO occurred despite placement of an anti-twist clip at the time of implant. External compression seems to play a role in most cases. Balloon "graftoplasty" and stent deployment via the femoral artery alleviated the obstruction and normalized LVAD flow in all patients who underwent percutaneous repair. The use of self-expanding stents allowed for downsizing of the procedural access site to 10 Fr. No serious procedure-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: OGO is common in HM3 patients, external compression due to biomaterial accumulated surrounding the OG is a common etiology. Percutaneous repair using standard IC techniques is safe and feasible in cases of compression with or without partial twisting.

Comprehensive Analysis of Stroke in the Long-Term Cohort of the MOMENTUM 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: The MOMENTUM 3 study (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3) has demonstrated that the HeartMate 3 (HM3) pump is associated with reduced strokes compared with the HeartMate II (HMII) device. We now perform a comprehensive analysis of stroke events to evaluate their longitudinal occurrence, clinical correlates, patterns, and impact on outcome across the 2-year duration of support. METHODS: MOMENTUM 3 is a randomized controlled trial of the HM3 centrifugal-flow pump versus the HMII axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, regardless of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). Baseline and postimplantation clinical correlates of stroke events were assessed with multivariable analyses. Longitudinal patterns, including device association, type of stroke (hemorrhagic versus ischemic), changing severity of impairment assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (disabling [modified Rankin Scale score >3] versus nondisabling [modified Rankin Scale score ≤3]) over time, and association with outcome, were determined. RESULTS: In 361 patients with the intended implant (189 HM3 and 172 HMII), 65 strokes (40 ischemic strokes and 25 hemorrhagic strokes) occurred in 52 patients at a median of 131 (range, 1-733) days. No difference in stroke rate was noted between 0 and 180 days of follow-up between devices. However, stroke incidence in the long-term period (181-730 days after left ventricular assist device) was 3.3 times lower for the HM3 group (HM3: 0.04 versus HMII: 0.13 events per patient-year; odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63; P=0.01). Treatment with the HM3 pump was the only independent predictor of lower stroke events. We found no direct association of blood pressure or antithrombotic regimens with observed stroke rates. A stroke event significantly lowered 2-year postimplantation survival regardless of subtype or initial severity of neurological impairment compared with patients without a stroke (43±12% for hemorrhagic stroke, 57±9% for ischemic stroke, 51±11% for disabling, and 51±11% for nondisabling compared with 85±2% 2-year survival for patients without stroke). CONCLUSIONS: The HM3 pump is associated with a marked reduction in stroke rates compared with the HMII device, with benefits observed in the long-term period (>6 months). The occurrence of stroke of any type (hemorrhagic and ischemic) or of any functional severity (disabling and nondisabling) is predictive of a poor 2-year clinical outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT02224755.

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.

Outcomes of heart transplantation in patients with human immunodeficiency virus.

Human immunodeficiency virus-positive (HIV+) patients are not routinely offered heart transplantation (HT) due to lack of adequate outcomes data. Between January 2004 and March 2017, we identified 41 adult (≥18 years) HT recipients with known HIV+ serostatus at the time of transplant in UNOS and evaluated post-HT outcomes. Overall, Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of survival at 1 and 5 years were 85.9% and 77.3%, respectively, with no significant difference in bridge-to-transplant ventricular-assist device (BTT-VAD, n = 22) and no-BTT-VAD (n = 19). KM estimates of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and malignancy at 5 years were 32% and 19%, respectively. Using propensity scores, 41 HIV+ HT recipients were matched to 41 HIV- HT recipients for idiopathic dilated-cardiomyopathy; and there was no significant difference in post-HT survival up to 5 years. Furthermore, only 24 centers in the United States had performed HIV+ HT during the study period, indicating that >80% of HT centers in the United States had not performed any HIV+ HT. In a cohort representative of the current status of HIV+ HTs in the United States, we found that the posttransplant survival was excellent and rates of CAV and malignancy were comparable to the overall HT population. These results should encourage greater number of centers to offer HT to suitable HIV+ candidates and help reduce unequal access to HT for HIV+ patients.

Hemocompatibility-Related Outcomes in the MOMENTUM 3 Trial at 6 Months: A Randomized Controlled Study of a Fully Magnetically Levitated Pump in Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The HeartMate 3 (HM3) Left Ventricular Assist System (LVAS) (Abbott) is a centrifugal, fully magnetically levitated, continuous-flow blood pump engineered to enhance hemocompatibility and reduce shear stress on blood components. The MOMENTUM 3 trial (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3) compares the HM3 LVAS with the HeartMate II (HMII) LVAS (Abbott) in advanced heart failure refractory to medical management, irrespective of therapeutic intention (bridge to transplant versus destination therapy). This investigation reported its primary outcome in the short-term cohort (n=294; 6-month follow-up), demonstrating superiority of the HM3 for the trial primary end point (survival free of a disabling stroke or reoperation to replace the pump for malfunction), driven by a reduced need for reoperations. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the aggregate of hemocompatibility-related clinical adverse events (HRAEs) between the 2 LVAS. METHODS: We conducted a secondary end point evaluation of HRAE (survival free of any nonsurgical bleeding, thromboembolic event, pump thrombosis, or neurological event) in the short-term cohort (as-treated cohort n=289) at 6 months. The net burden of HRAE was also assessed by using a previously described hemocompatibility score, which uses 4 escalating tiers of hierarchal severity to derive a total score for events encountered during the entire follow-up experience for each patient. RESULTS: In 289 patients in the as-treated group (151 the HM3 and 138 the HMII), survival free of any HRAE was achieved in 69% of the HM3 group and in 55% of the HMII group (hazard ratio, 0.62; confidence interval, 0.42-0.91; P=0.012). Using the hemocompatibility score, the HM3 group demonstrated less pump thrombosis requiring reoperation (0 versus 36 points, P<0.001) or medically managed pump thrombosis (0 versus 5 points, P=0.02), and fewer nondisabling strokes (6 versus 24 points, P=0.026) than the control HMII LVAS. The net hemocompatibility score in the HM3 in comparison with the HMII patients was 101 (0.67±1.50 points/patient) versus 137 (0.99±1.79 points/patient) (odds ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.39-1.03; P=0.065). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, the HM3 LVAS demonstrated greater freedom from HRAEs in comparison with the HMII LVAS at 6 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02224755.

A bridge from HeartMate XVE to HeartMate 3.

Cardiac recovery after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is rare. Recurrent heart failure after device explantation is also rare. We describe a patient who is the recipient of a third-generation LVAD due to recurrent heart failure nearly one decade after successfully being bridged to recovery after implantation of a first-generation LVAD.

Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Outcomes of Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathies After LVAD: An INTERMACS Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic (HCM) cardiomyopathies are felt to be a difficult population to treat with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Scarce data exist on outcomes of continuous-flow (CF) LVAD support in these challenging patient cohorts. METHODS: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry was queried for all patients with RCM (n = 94) and HCM (n = 104) who underwent CF LVAD implantation between March 2008 and March 2014. Survival, adverse event rates, baseline demographics, echocardiography parameters, and competing outcomes were compared with patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 8749). RESULTS: Left ventricular size was smaller and baseline EF was higher in RCM and HCM compared with DCM patients. Nonetheless, these parameters were not completely normal in the RCM and HCM groups, suggesting that most of these patients exhibited features of a DCM and represented a mixed phenotype. In these specific patient populations, survival up to 4 years was not different among the 3 groups (log rank 0.25) and competing outcomes at 1 year were similar. In the subgroup of patients with very small ventricles (ie, < 5.0 cm), survival was far inferior. Finally, overall rates of right ventricular assist device requirement, hemolysis, pump dysfunction, and cardiac arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients with HCM and RCM undergo CF LVAD implantation, and most that do display some features of a DCM. Overall survival and adverse event profiles of these patients were similar to traditional DCM patients; however, in those with very small ventricles, survival was inferior.