Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Data regarding outcomes with Impella 5.5 are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize patient and treatment characteristics and early clinical outcomes among patients supported by Impella 5.5. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from September 2019 to March 2023. Studies reporting outcomes in greater than or equal to 5 patients were included for review. Patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and early clinical outcomes were extracted. Outcomes included adverse events, survival to hospital discharge, and 30 day survival. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled effects for survival outcomes. Assessment for bias was performed using funnel plots and Egger's tests. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative review, representing 707 patients. Mean duration of support was 9.9 ± 8.2 days. On meta-analysis of 13 studies reporting survival outcomes, survival to hospital discharge was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58-78%), and 30 day survival was 65% (95% CI, 56-74%) among patients with Impella devices predominantly supported by Impella 5.5 (>60%). There was significant study heterogeneity for these outcomes. Among 294 patients with Impella 5.5 only, survival to discharge was 78% (95% CI, 72-82%) with no significant study heterogeneity. This data present early benchmarks for outcomes with Impella 5.5 as clinical experience with these devices accrues.

Ventricular assist device using a thoracotomy-based implant technique: Multi-Center Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy (HM3 SWIFT).

OBJECTIVES: The HeartMate 3 (Abbott) left ventricular assist device provides substantial improvement in long-term morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure. The Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study compares thoracotomy-based implantation clinical outcomes with standard median sternotomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study in patients eligible for HeartMate 3 implantation with thoracotomy-based surgical technique (bilateral thoracotomy or partial upper sternotomy with left thoracotomy). The composite primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke (modified Rankin score >3), or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device, or conversion to median sternotomy at 6-months postimplant (elective transplants were treated as a success). The primary end point (noninferiority, -15% margin) was assessed with >90% power compared with a propensity score-matched cohort (ratio 1:2) derived from the Multi-Center Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 continued access protocol. RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients between December 2020 and July 2022 in the thoracotomy-based arm at 23 North American centers. Follow-up concluded in December 2022. In the Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study group, noninferiority criteria was met (absolute between-group difference, -1.2%; Farrington Manning lower 1-sided 95% CI, -9.3%; P < .0025) and event-free survival was not different (85.0% vs 86.2%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.58-2.10). Length of stay with thoracotomy-based implant was longer (median, 20 vs 17 days; P = .03). No differences were observed for blood product utilization, adverse events (including right heart failure), functional status, and quality of life between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracotomy-based implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device is noninferior to implantation via standard full sternotomy. This study supports thoracotomy-based implantation as an additional standard for surgical implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device.

The Jarvik 2000 Left Ventricular Assist Device: Results of the United States Bridge to Transplant Trial.

The Jarvik 2000 bridge to transplant investigational device exemption study was a multicentered, prospective study of 150 UNOS status I patients implanted with the Jarvik 2000 between 2005 and 2012. During the study period, there were numerous modifications of the system that included converting from pin to cone bearings. Results were analyzed for three cohorts: total (n = 150), pin (n = 128), and cone (n = 22). Baseline demographics included age (52 ± 13), gender (79% male), size (BSA 1.98), and etiology (37% idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy; 43% Ischemic). Seventy percent of patients were either INTERMACS 1 or 2. The primary endpoint-defined as successful transplantation or listing at 180 days (prespecified at 65%; 95% lower CI: 57%)-was successfully achieved for the total cohort (67.3%; 95% CI: 59.5%-74.3%; p = 0.006). In subgroup analysis of the more contemporary, cone-bearing group, the primary endpoint was met in 91% (95% CI: 72%-97.5%; p = 0.001). Compared with pin patients, cone-bearing patients had less hemolysis as well as decreased end-organ dysfunction. Functional and quality of life scores improved after implantation independent type of bearing. In conclusion, despite a particularly sick patient population, the Jarvik 2000 was shown to be effective in supporting the advanced HF patient.

Hospitalization Patterns and Impact of a Magnetically-Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device in the MOMENTUM 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) pivotal trial, the HeartMate 3 (HM3) fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device (LVAD) demonstrated superiority over the axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD. The patterns and predictors of hospitalizations with the HM3 LVAD have not been characterized. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine causes, predictors, and impact of hospitalizations during LVAD support. METHODS: Patients discharged after LVAD implantation were analyzed. In the pivotal trial, 485 recipients of HM3 were compared with 471 recipients of HMII. The pivotal trial HM3 group was also compared to 949 recipients of HM3 in the postapproval phase within the trial portfolio. Predictors of cause-specific rehospitalization were analyzed. RESULTS: The rates of rehospitalization were lower with HM3 LVAD than with HMII LVAD in the pivotal trial (225.7 vs 246.4 events per 100 patient-years; P < 0.05). Overall, rehospitalization rates and duration were similar in the HM3 postapproval phase and pivotal trial but prolonged hospitalizations (>7 days) were less frequent (rate ratio: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.80-0.98]; P < 0.05). In HM3 recipients, the most frequent causes of rehospitalization included infection, heart failure (HF)-related events, and bleeding. First rehospitalization caused by HF-related event versus other causes was associated with reduced survival (HR: 2.2 [95% CI: 1.3-3.9]; P = 0.0014). Male sex, non-White race, presence of cardiac resynchronization therapy/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, obesity, higher right atrial pressure, smaller LV size, longer duration of index hospitalization, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at index discharge predicted HF hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary support with the HM3 fully magnetically levitated LVAD is associated with a lower hospitalization burden than with prior pumps; however, rehospitalizations for infection, HF, and bleeding remain important challenges for progress in the patient journey. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study, NCT02224755; MOMENTUM 3 Continued Access Protocol [MOMENTUM 3 CAP], NCT02892955).

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.

What If the Destination Is Transplant? Outcomes of Destination Therapy Patients Who Were Transplanted.

We sought to characterize patients who underwent heart transplant (HTx) following destination therapy (DT) implant in the combined ENDURANCE/ENDURANCE Supplemental Trials (DT/DT2). A post hoc analysis of the DT/DT2 trials was performed. Baseline characteristics and adverse events between the HTx and no-HTx cohorts were analyzed. Reasons for transplant were examined. Time to HTx was compared with contemporaneous HVAD BTT trial patients. Of the 604 DT/DT2 HVAD patients, 80 (13%) underwent HTx. The HTx cohort was younger (53.6 ± 11.1 vs. 65.2 ± 10.8, P < 0.0001) with fewer Caucasians (60.0% vs. 76.5%, P = 0.002), less ischemic cardiomyopathy (42.5% vs. 58.8%, P = 0.01), and atrial fibrillation (38.8% vs. 54.4%, P = 0.01). The HTx cohort had longer 6-minute walk distances (183.6 vs. 38.0 m, P = 0.02). Most HTx in DT/DT2 were categorized as elective (n = 63, 79%) and, of these, 70% were due to modification of behavioral issues and weight loss. Adverse events were the main indication for urgent HTx (n = 17, 21%). Median times to HTx were longer in DT/DT2 (550.0 days) versus BTT/lateral (285.2 days). In this post hoc analysis of the DT/DT2 trials, over 1 in 10 underwent heart transplantation within 3 years of HVAD support. In DT therapy patients, consideration for transplant following DT VAD implant may be feasible.

Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) are a recommended treatment by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence England for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Despite the fact that DT is frequently used as an LVAD indication across other major European countries and the United States, with consistent improvements in quality-of-life and longevity, National Health Service (NHS) England does not currently fund DT, mainly due to concerns over cost-effectiveness. On the basis of the recently published ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial studying DT patients, we assessed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of DT LVADs compared with medical management (MM) in the NHS England. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov multiple-state economic model using NHS cost data. LVAD survival and adverse event rates were derived from the ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial. MM survival was based on Seattle Heart Failure Model estimates in the absence of contemporary clinical trials for this population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. A discount rate of 3.5% per year was applied to costs and benefits. Deterministic ICER was £46 207 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs and utilities were £204 022 and 3.27 QALYs for the LVAD arm vs. £77 790 and 0.54 QALYs for the MM arm. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of the HeartWare™ HVAD™ System in patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation as DT is a cost-effective therapy in the NHS England healthcare system under the end-of-life willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000/QALY, which applies for VAD patients.

Clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditures in the real world with left ventricular assist devices - The CLEAR-LVAD study.

BACKGROUND: Several distinctly engineered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are in clinical use. However, contemporaneous real world comparisons have not been conducted, and clinical trials were not powered to evaluate differential survival outcomes across devices. OBJECTIVES: Determine real world survival outcomes and healthcare expenditures for commercially available durable LVADs. METHODS: Using a retrospective observational cohort design, Medicare claims files were linked to manufacturer device registration data to identify de-novo, durable LVAD implants performed between January 2014 and December 2018, with follow-up through December 2019. Survival outcomes were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LVAD type and validated using propensity score matching. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed across device types by using nonparametric bootstrap analysis methodology. Primary outcome was survival at 1-year and total Part A Medicare payments. RESULTS: A total of 4,195 de-novo LVAD implants were identified in fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (821 HeartMate 3; 1,840 HeartMate II; and 1,534 Other-VADs). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality at 1-year (confirmed in a propensity score matched analysis) for the HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was 0.64 (95% CI; 0.52-0.79, p< 0.001) and for the HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was 0.51 (95% CI; 0.42-0.63, p < 0.001). The HeartMate 3 cohort experienced fewer hospitalizations per patient-year vs Other-VADs (respectively, 2.8 vs 3.2 EPPY hospitalizations, p < 0.01) and 6.1 fewer hospital days on average (respectively, 25.2 vs 31.3 days, p < 0.01). The difference in Medicare expenditures, conditional on survival, for HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was -$10,722, p < 0.001 (17.4% reduction) and for HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was -$17,947, p < 0.001 (26.1% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large, real world, United States. administrative dataset of durable LVADs, we observed that the HeartMate 3 had superior survival, reduced healthcare resource use, and lower healthcare expenditure compared to other contemporary commercially available LVADs.