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.).

Clonal Hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential and Long-term Outcomes in Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) mutations, a trait of aging, has been associated with the progression of cardiovascular disease and the development of malignancy. Uncertainty prevails regarding a robust association between CHIP and heart-transplantation (HT) outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of CHIP mutations in HT and their association with long-term outcomes, including cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), graft failure, malignancy, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a mixed retrospective-prospective observational study of HT recipients with targeted sequencing for CHIP mutations (variant allele frequency [VAF] of ≥ 2%). The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of CAV grade ≥ 2, graft failure, malignancy, cardiac retransplantation, or all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the composite primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses with base-case and extreme scenarios were performed. RESULTS: Among 95 HT recipients, 30 had CHIP mutations (31.6%). DNMT3A mutations were most common (44.7%), followed by PPM1D (13.2%), SF3B1 (10.5%), TET2 (7.9%), and TP53 (7.9%). The only significant independent predictor of CHIP was age at enrollment or age at transplantation. After multivariable adjustment, CHIP mutations were not associated with the primary outcome, which occurred in 44 (46.3%) patients (HR = 0.487; 95% CI:0.197-1.204; P = 0.119), nor were they associated with mlalignancy alone, or death. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated no association between CHIP mutations and post-transplant outcomes, including CAV, graft failure, malignancy, and all-cause mortality. In line with previously published data, our analysis provides additional evidence about the lack of clinical value of using CHIP mutations as a biomarker for surveillance in outcomes after HT.

Assessment of Temporary Warfarin Reversal in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices: the KVAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) require interruption of warfarin for invasive procedures, but parenteral bridging is associated with many complications. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) can temporarily restore hemostasis in patients undergoing anticoagulation with warfarin. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the strategy of using variable-dose 4F-PCC to immediately and temporarily reverse warfarin before invasive procedures without holding warfarin in patients with LVADs. The duration of effect of 4F-PCC on factor levels and time to reestablish therapeutic anticoagulation post procedure were assessed. METHODS: Adult patients with LVADs and planned invasive procedures were enrolled from a single center. Warfarin was continued uninterrupted. The 4F-PCC dose administered immediately pre-procedure was based on study protocol. International normalized ratio (INR)- and vitamin K-dependent factor levels were collected before and during the 48 hours after 4F-PCC administration. The use of parenteral bridging, International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) and thromboembolic events at 7 and 30 days were collected. RESULTS: In 21 episodes of 4F-PCC reversal, median baseline INR was 2.7 (IQR 2.2-3.2). The median dosage of 4F-PCC administered was 1794 units (IQR 1536-2130). At 24 and 48 hours post 4F-PCC administration, median INRs were 1.8 (IQR 1.7-2.0) and 2.0 (IQR 1.9-2.4). Two patients required postoperative bridging. One patient experienced major bleeding within 72 hours, and 2 experienced CRNMB within 30 days. There were no thromboembolic events. Baseline and post 4F-PCC vitamin K-dependent factor levels corresponded with changes in INR values. The median time to achieve therapeutic INR post-procedure was 2.5 days (IQR, 1-4). CONCLUSION: Administration of 4F-PCC for temporary reversal of warfarin for invasive procedures in patients with LVADs allowed for continued warfarin dosing with minimal use of post-intervention bridging, limited bleeding and no thromboembolic events.

High Risk of Stroke in Patients With Worsening Heart Failure, Reduced Ejection Fraction, Coronary Heart Disease and Sinus Rhythm: Risk Prediction Score Analysis From the COMMANDER-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and sinus rhythm have a heightened risk of stroke. Whether anticoagulation benefits these patients is uncertain. In this post hoc analysis of the A Study to Assess the Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke in Participants with Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease Following an Episode of Decompensated Heart Failure (COMMANDER-HF) trial we evaluated how a previously validated risk model consisting of 3 variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level) would perform, compared with plasma d-dimer, for stroke prediction and estimation of the benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban. METHODS AND RESULTS: Stroke risk and treatment effect were computed across risk score and plasma d-dimer tertiles. Risk score was available in 58% of the COMMANDER-HF population (n = 2928). Over a median follow-up of 512 days (range 342-747 days), 60 patients experienced a stroke (14.6 per 1000 patient-years). The risk model did not identify patients at higher risk of stroke and showed a low overall prognostic performance (C-index = 0.53). The effect of rivaroxaban on stroke was homogeneous across risk score tertiles (P-interaction = .67). Among patients in whom the risk score was estimated, d-dimer was available in 2343 (80%). d-dimer had an acceptable discrimination performance for stroke prediction (C-index = 0.66) and higher plasma d-dimer concentrations were associated with higher rates of stroke (ie, tertile 3 vs tertile 1, hazard ratio 3.65, 95% confidence interval 1.59-8.39, P = .002). Treatment with low-dose rivaroxaban reduced the incidence of stroke in patients at highest risk by d-dimer levels (ie, >515 ng/mL, hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.95, P-interaction = .074), without any safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, plasma d-dimer concentrations performed better than a previously described 3-variable risk score for stroke prediction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a recent clinical worsening and sinus rhythm as enrolled in the COMMANDER-HF trial. In these patients, a raised plasma d-dimer concentration identified patients who might benefit most from rivaroxaban.

Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect people with cardiovascular disease. Concern has been aroused regarding a potential harmful effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in this clinical context. METHODS: Using an observational database from 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America, we evaluated the relationship of cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death among hospitalized patients with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019, and March 15, 2020, and were recorded in the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative registry as having either died in the hospital or survived to discharge as of March 28, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 8910 patients with Covid-19 for whom discharge status was available at the time of the analysis, a total of 515 died in the hospital (5.8%) and 8395 survived to discharge. The factors we found to be independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death were an age greater than 65 years (mortality of 10.0%, vs. 4.9% among those ≤65 years of age; odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 2.41), coronary artery disease (10.2%, vs. 5.2% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.08 to 3.51), heart failure (15.3%, vs. 5.6% among those without heart failure; odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.79), cardiac arrhythmia (11.5%, vs. 5.6% among those without arrhythmia; odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.86), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.2%, vs. 5.6% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.00 to 4.40), and current smoking (9.4%, vs. 5.6% among former smokers or nonsmokers; odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.47). No increased risk of in-hospital death was found to be associated with the use of ACE inhibitors (2.1% vs. 6.1%; odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.54) or the use of ARBs (6.8% vs. 5.7%; odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous observations suggesting that underlying cardiovascular disease is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death among patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Our results did not confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital death in this clinical context. (Funded by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.).

Mechanical circulatory support for adults in Japan: A 10-year perspective.

Globalization in Asia and consequent strengthening of healthcare economic factors in tandem with an increasing heart failure (HF) population have enhanced potential for development and progress in the fields of HF medicine and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In Japan, there are unique opportunities to investigate the outcome of acute and chronic MCS and a national registry for percutaneous and implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) including Impella pumps has been established. A Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute MCS has been used in more than 7000 patients annually and Impella usage in more than 4000 patients over the past 4 years was noted. Recently, a novel centrifugal pump with hydrodynamically levitated impeller was developed and approved for mid-term extracorporeal circulatory support. In terms of chronic MCS more than 1200 continuous flow LVADs have been implanted during the past decade, and 2-year survival rate after primary LVAD implantation is 91%. Because of donor organ shortage, more than 70% of heart transplant recipients required LVAD support for more than 3 years and prevention and treatment of complications during long-term LVAD support have become important. Five important topics including hemocompatibility-related complications, LVAD infections, aortic valve insufficiency, right ventricular failure and cardiac recovery during LVAD support are discussed in this review for improving clinical outcomes. Findings from Japan will continue to provide useful information regarding MCS for the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

Heart transplantation: focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and novel therapies.

Heart transplantation is advocated in selected patients with advanced heart failure in the absence of contraindications. Principal challenges in heart transplantation centre around an insufficient and underutilized donor organ pool, the need to individualize titration of immunosuppressive therapy, and to minimize late complications such as cardiac allograft vasculopathy, malignancy, and renal dysfunction. Advances have served to increase the organ donor pool by advocating the use of donors with underlying hepatitis C virus infection and by expanding the donor source to use hearts donated after circulatory death. New techniques to preserve the donor heart over prolonged ischaemic times, and enabling longer transport times in a safe manner, have been introduced. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation has allowed patients with advanced heart failure to avoid progressive deterioration in hepato-renal function while awaiting an optimal donor organ match. The management of the heart transplantation recipient remains a challenge despite advances in immunosuppression, which provide early gains in rejection avoidance but are associated with infections and late-outcome challenges. In this article, we review contemporary advances and challenges in this field to focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and immunosuppressive monitoring therapies with the potential to enhance outcomes. We also describe opportunities for future discovery to include a renewed focus on long-term survival, which continues to be an area that is under-studied and poorly characterized, non-human sources of organs for transplantation including xenotransplantation as well as chimeric transplantation, and technology competitive to human heart transplantation, such as tissue engineering.

The GUIDE-HF trial of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in heart failure: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813.

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.

Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure (GUIDE-HF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.

Heart and Lung Transplants from HCV-Infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia are typically not transplanted. The advent of direct-acting antiviral agents to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has raised the possibility of substantially increasing the donor organ pool by enabling the transplantation of hearts and lungs from HCV-infected donors into recipients who do not have HCV infection. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving transplantation of hearts and lungs from donors who had hepatitis C viremia, irrespective of HCV genotype, to adults without HCV infection. Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, a pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral regimen, was preemptively administered to the organ recipients for 4 weeks, beginning within a few hours after transplantation, to block viral replication. The primary outcome was a composite of a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of antiviral therapy for HCV infection and graft survival at 6 months after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were enrolled: 36 received lung transplants and 8 received heart transplants. The median viral load in the HCV-infected donors was 890,000 IU per milliliter (interquartile range, 276,000 to 4.63 million). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (in 61% of the donors), genotype 2 (in 17%), genotype 3 (in 17%), and indeterminate (in 5%). A total of 42 of 44 recipients (95%) had a detectable hepatitis C viral load immediately after transplantation, with a median of 1800 IU per milliliter (interquartile range, 800 to 6180). Of the first 35 patients enrolled who had completed 6 months of follow-up, all 35 patients (100%; exact 95% confidence interval, 90 to 100) were alive and had excellent graft function and an undetectable hepatitis C viral load at 6 months after transplantation; the viral load became undetectable by approximately 2 weeks after transplantation, and it subsequently remained undetectable in all patients. No treatment-related serious adverse events were identified. More cases of acute cellular rejection for which treatment was indicated occurred in the HCV-infected lung-transplant recipients than in a cohort of patients who received lung transplants from donors who did not have HCV infection. This difference was not significant after adjustment for possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without HCV infection who received a heart or lung transplant from donors with hepatitis C viremia, treatment with an antiviral regimen for 4 weeks, initiated within a few hours after transplantation, prevented the establishment of HCV infection. (Funded by the Mendez National Institute of Transplantation Foundation and others; DONATE HCV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03086044.).

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.).

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.

Medical decisions in organ donors and heart transplant candidates with history of COVID-19 infection: An international practice survey.

BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of transplant donors and recipients have a history of COVID-19 infection. This study sought to characterize clinical practice after recipient or donor COVID-19 infection. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to heart transplant clinicians through a professional society message board and social media. Responses were collected between September 29 and November 5, 2021. RESULTS: There were 222 health care professionals (68% transplant cardiologists, 22% transplant surgeons, 10% other) across diverse geographic regions who completed the survey. While there was significant variation in donor acceptance, as it relates to past and current COVID-19 infection, the respondents were fairly cautious: 28% would not typically accept a donor with a history of COVID-19 regardless of the infection course and > 80% would not accept donors who had evidence of myocardial dysfunction during past COVID-19 infection, or who died of COVID-19 or its complications. The timing of candidate reactivation on the waiting list after COVID-19 infection also varied and often diverged from scenarios addressed by social guidelines. Eighty-one percent of the respondents felt COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory before transplant, but this rate varied by geographic region. CONCLUSION: Our results reflect evolving experience of the heart transplant field at a time of lack of high-quality evidence. In the absence of longer-term outcome data for donors and transplant candidates with history of COVID-19 infection, clinicians remain cautious; however, this approach will likely need to be refined as an increasing proportion of the population will continue to be infected with COVID-19.

The management of secondary mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC.

Secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation (SMR) occurs frequently in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, resulting from LV remodelling that prevents coaptation of the valve leaflets. Secondary mitral regurgitation contributes to progression of the symptoms and signs of HF and confers worse prognosis. The management of HF patients with SMR is complex and requires timely referral to a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Optimization of pharmacological and device therapy according to guideline recommendations is crucial. Further management requires careful clinical and imaging assessment, addressing the anatomical and functional features of the mitral valve and left ventricle, overall HF status, and relevant comorbidities. Evidence concerning surgical correction of SMR is sparse and it is doubtful whether this approach improves prognosis. Transcatheter repair has emerged as a promising alternative, but the conflicting results of current randomized trials require careful interpretation. This collaborative position statement, developed by four key associations of the European Society of Cardiology-the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)-presents an updated practical approach to the evaluation and management of patients with HF and SMR based upon a Heart Team approach.

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.

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). FINDINGS: 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. INTERPRETATION: We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. FUNDING: William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Heart Failure, Sinus Rhythm, and Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is associated with activation of thrombin-related pathways, which predicts a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that treatment with rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, could reduce thrombin generation and improve outcomes for patients with worsening chronic heart failure and underlying coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, 5022 patients who had chronic heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, coronary artery disease, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides and who did not have atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo in addition to standard care after treatment for an episode of worsening heart failure. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The principal safety outcome was fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space with a potential for causing permanent disability. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 21.1 months, the primary end point occurred in 626 (25.0%) of 2507 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and in 658 (26.2%) of 2515 patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.05; P=0.27). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was noted between the rivaroxaban group and the placebo group (21.8% and 22.1%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.10). The principal safety outcome occurred in 18 patients who took rivaroxaban and in 23 who took placebo (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.49; P=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily was not associated with a significantly lower rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than placebo among patients with worsening chronic heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, and no atrial fibrillation. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; COMMANDER HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01877915 .).

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 .).

Characteristics of clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross sectional analysis.

Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries. RESULTS: A total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: A minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.