Donor Heart Allocation

The limited number of donor hearts is one of the greatest and persistent challenges to heart transplantation. Allocation of this precious resource requires the integration of objective data, clinical intuition, and moral fairness. Institution of an allocation system by UNOS has provided important structure to the allocation methodology. The system must be periodically reviewed and reorganized to ensure it is reflective of current patient disease and clinical practice and builds upon the previous knowledge paradigms. Since the establishment of the 2006 allocation system, not only has there been a dramatic increase in the number of heart transplant candidates, but also a dramatic increase in the number of patients qualifying as high-priority candidates. To address these changes, UNOS Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee was tasked with providing a revised allocation system. The resulting system aims to improve waitlist mortality and post-transplant outcomes by better prioritizing the highest acuity patients while improving the geographic distribution of organ offers

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 \u3c 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

Slope of the anterior mitral valve leaflet: A new measurement of left ventricular unloading for left ventricular assist devices and systolic dysfunction

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients are evaluated routinely with use of transthoracic echocardiography. Values of left ventricular unloading in this unique patient population are needed to evaluate LVAD function and assist in patient follow-up. We introduce a new M-mode measurement, the slope of the anterior mitral valve leaflet (SLAM), and compare its efficacy with that of other standard echocardiographically evaluated values for left ventricular loading, including E/e′ and pulmonary artery systolic pressures. Average SLAM values were determined retrospectively for cohorts of random, non-LVAD patients with moderately to severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (<0.35, n=60). In addition, pre- and post-LVAD implantation echocardiographic images of 81 patients were reviewed. The average SLAM in patients with an LVEF <0.35 was 11.6 cm/s (95% confidence interval, 10.4–12.8); SLAM had a moderately strong correlation with E/e′ in these patients. Implantation of LVADs significantly increased the SLAM from 7.3 ± 2.44 to 14.7 ± 5.01 cm/s (n=42, P <0.0001). The LVAD-supported patients readmitted for exacerbation of congestive heart failure exhibited decreased SLAM from 12 ± 3.93 to 7.3 ± 3.5 cm/s (n=6, P=0.041). In addition, a cutpoint of 10 cm/s distinguished random patients with LVEF <0.35 from those in end-stage congestive heart failure (pre-LVAD) with an 88% sensitivity and a 55% specificity. Evaluating ventricular unloading in LVAD patients remains challenging. Our novel M-mode value correlates with echocardiographic values of left ventricular filling in patients with moderate-to-severe systolic function and dynamically improves with the ventricular unloading of an LVAD

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\u3c 0.001) and for the HeartMate 3 vs Other-VADs was 0.51 (95% CI; 0.42-0.63, p \u3c 0.001). The HeartMate 3 cohort experienced fewer hospitalizations per patient-year vs Other-VADs (respectively, 2.8 vs 3.2 EPPY hospitalizations, p \u3c 0.01) and 6.1 fewer hospital days on average (respectively, 25.2 vs 31.3 days, p \u3c 0.01). The difference in Medicare expenditures, conditional on survival, for HeartMate 3 vs HeartMate II was -$10,722, p \u3c 0.001 (17.4$17,947, p \u3c 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

Impact of left ventricular assist device implantation on mitral regurgitation: An analysis from the MOMENTUM 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation (MR) determines pathophysiology and outcome in advanced heart failure. The impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement on clinically significant MR and its contribution to long-term outcomes has been sparsely evaluated. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of clinically significant MR on patients implanted in the MOMENTUM 3 trial with either the HeartMate II (HMII) or the HeartMate 3 (HM3) at 2 years. Clinical significance was defined as moderate or severe grade MR determined by site-based echocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 927 patients with LVAD implants without a prior or concomitant mitral valve procedure, 403 (43.5%) had clinically significant MR at baseline. At 1-month of support, residual MR was present in 6.2% of patients with HM3 and 14.3% of patients with HMII (relative risk = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84; p = 0.01) with a low rate of worsening at 2 years. Residual MR at 1-month post-implant did not impact 2-year mortality for either the HM3 (hazard ratio [HR],1.41; 95% CI, 0.52-3.89; p = 0.50) or HMII (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.26; p = 0.84) LVAD. The presence or absence of baseline MR did not influence mortality (HM3 HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33; p = 0.50; HMII HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; p = 0.32), major adverse events or functional capacity. In multivariate analysis, severe baseline MR (p = 0.001), larger left ventricular dimension (p = 0.002), and implantation with the HMII instead of the HM3 LVAD (p = 0.05) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of persistent MR post-implant. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic unloading after LVAD implantation improves clinically significant MR early, sustainably, and to a greater extent with the HM3 LVAD. Neither baseline nor residual MR influence outcomes after LVAD implantation

Interpreting neurologic outcomes in a changing trial design landscape: An analysis of HeartWare left ventricular assist device using a hybrid intention to treat population

Randomized controlled trials can provide optimal clinical evidence to assess the benefits of new devices, and it is these data that often shape device usage in real-world practice. However, individual clinical trial results sometimes appear discordant for the same device, and alternative devices are sometimes not employed in similar patient populations. To make sound evidence-based decisions, clinicians routinely rely on cross-trial comparisons from different trials of similar but not identical patient populations to assess competing technology when head-to-head randomized comparisons are unavailable