Implantable system for treprostinil and lung transplantation: case series from delivery for pulmonary arterial hypertension study.

The implanted system for treprostinil has been described in previous publications. There is no information published about how to handle this system around lung or heart-lung transplantation. We present the experience from the DelIVery for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension study. Seven subjects from five pulmonary arterial hypertension centers were included in this retrospective chart review. All subjects were participating in the previously described DelIVery for pulmonary arterial hypertension study. Seven subjects with implanted pumps have been listed for lung or heart-lung transplant. Six subjects underwent lung or heart-lung transplantation and one remains on the transplant list. Three different methods of patient management for transplant were used. In three subjects, the implanted system was filled with saline prior to transplantation and treprostinil was infused via an external system. Three subjects had their drug-filled implanted pump and catheter system explanted at the time of transplant. One patient had the drug-filled implanted system removed prior to being listed for transplantation. Four subjects were hospitalized while waiting for transplantation. In conclusion, the implanted system for treprostinil is an important advance in the care of pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects. The experience described here provides three effective strategies for managing the implanted system around lung or heart-lung transplantation. The optimal strategy will depend on patient characteristics and lung transplant program preferences and wait list times.

Economic value and cost-effectiveness of biventricular versus right ventricular pacing: results from the BLOCK-HF study.

Aims: The Biventricular vs Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK-HF) demonstrated that biventricular (BiV) pacing resulted in better clinical and structural outcomes compared to right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; ≤50%). This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of BiV vs RV pacing in the patient population enrolled in the BLOCK-HF trial. Methods: All-cause mortality, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class distribution over time, and NYHA-specific heart failure (HF)-related healthcare utilization rates were predicted using statistical models based on BLOCK-HF patient data. A proportion-in-state model calculated cost-effectiveness from the Medicare payer perspective. Results: The predicted patient survival was 6.78 years with RV and 7.52 years with BiV pacing, a 10.9% increase over lifetime. BiV pacing resulted in 0.41 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to RV pacing, at an additional cost of $12,537. The "base-case" incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $30,860/QALY gained. Within the clinical sub-groups, the highest observed ICER was $43,687 (NYHA Class I). Patients receiving combined BiV pacing and defibrillation (BiV-D) devices were projected to benefit more (0.84 years gained) than BiV pacemaker (BiV-P) recipients (0.49 years gained), compared to dual-chamber pacemakers. Conclusions: BiV pacing in AV block patients improves survival and attenuates HF progression compared to RV pacing. ICERs were consistently below the US acceptability threshold ($50,000/QALY). From a US Medicare perspective, the additional up-front cost associated with offering BiV pacing to the BLOCK-HF patient population appears justified.

Long-term results of the DelIVery for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension trial.

BACKGROUND: The DelIVery for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension clinical trial was a multi-center, prospective, single arm, Investigational Device Exemption study utilizing a fully implantable, programmable intravascular delivery system consisting of a pump and a catheter for intravenous treprostinil. The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated that the intravascular delivery system significantly reduced catheter related complications at 22,000 subject-days of follow-up compared with a predefined objective performance criterion. Here we summarize the results obtained during a 6.4-year follow-up period. METHODS: Throughout study follow-up, participants had clinic visits and medication refills at least every 12 weeks (dependent on the subjects' dose). All adverse events and intravascular delivery system complications were evaluated and recorded. RESULTS: Sixty pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects were followed post device implantation for approximately 282 patient-years (range 87 days to 6.4 years). Of the 60 subjects, 14 died (1 related to intravascular delivery system pump failure), 2 withdrew after lung transplants, and 2 withdrew due to pump pocket infection. No catheter-related bloodstream infections, catheter thrombosis or occlusions, or catheter kinks occurred through 282 patient-years. Two participants had adverse events of abdominal pain, rash, due to subcutaneous treprostinil "leaks" after one catheter puncture and one catheter laceration during pump refill and replacement, respectively. Eight pump failure events occurred: seven pump motor stalls and one early replacement (faulty battery). CONCLUSION: Delivery of treprostinil with an intravascular delivery system is a safe alternative to an external delivery system, while providing enhanced life experiences. To preserve the risk-benefit ratio, treatment at specialized pulmonary arterial hypertension centers is recommended until training is disseminated at other sites.