First 5-year multicentric clinical trial experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist system

Fully magnetically centrifugal left ventricular assist device and long-term outcomes: the ELEVATE registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

HeartMate 3 (HM3) is a fully magnetically levitated continuous flow left ventricular assist device, which received CE marking in 2015. The ELEVATE Registry was initiated to collect real-world outcomes in patients treated with HM3 post-CE Mark approval.

METHODS

A total of 540 subjects implanted at 26 centres between March 2015 and February 2017 were included in this registry. Of these, 463 received the device as a primary implant (primary implant cohort, PIC), 19 as a pump exchange (pump exchange cohort), and in 58 patients, only anonymized survival data were collected (anonymized cohort, AC). Patients in the PIC contributed to the baseline demographics, survival, adverse events, quality of life (QoL) (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels visual analogue scale), and functional capacity (6 min walk distance) assessments, while patients in the AC contributed only to survival.

RESULTS

Primary implant cohort patients had a mean age of 56 years and were predominantly male (89%) with 48% ischaemic aetiology. The majority of subjects was designated bridge to transplant (66%) and had INTERMACS Profiles 1-3 (70%). At baseline, the subjects had poor functional capacity (104 ± 140 m) and impaired QoL (35 ± 19 points). The overall survival rate of the PIC was 63.3% and survival free of stroke was 58.1% at 5 years. Significant improvements in functional capacity and QoL were observed and maintained for 5 years (301 ± 131 m and 64 ± 20 points, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data from the ELEVATE registry demonstrate an overall survival rate for primary implants of 63.3%. In the PIC, reductions in adverse events for patients in the extended follow-up and improved QoL and functional capacity were observed at 5 years in this patient population with advanced heart failure.

Insights into the daily life of ventricular assist device coordinators: Outcome of an international questionnaire

BACKGROUND

As the incidence of heart failure in developed countries is on the rise, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) often remains the only treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure and is well established worldwide. Even though VAD coordinators play a key role in VAD programs, their responsibilities and daily duties are not clearly defined and characterized. Recently published data from the first 5-year multicenter clinical trial assessing experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular system (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) show an overall survival of 61% at 5 years. When it comes to possible improvements to these systems, it is necessary for developers not only to know the status quo but also to determine and consider the visions and wishes of those individuals who take care of patients, provide education and deal with possible complications. This would be helpful a meaningful effort towards implementing a standard of care.

METHODS

To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted an online survey using the SurveyMonkey tool, addressing representatives of programs implanting VADs worldwide. Representatives answered a standardized block of 14 questions and were asked to provide responses within 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 91 VAD coordinators from centers of various regions of the world completed the survey. The majority came from European countries. The numbers of patients followed up by the centers ranged from <20 to 390 patients. The majority of VAD coordinators had a nursing background (68%). Seventy-seven percent of the centers operate a 24-h hotline and 3-monthly visits to the outpatient department are most common. Fifty-nine percent of the centers do not use an infection scoring system for driveline wound care. The majority of the centers indicated that an optimized follow-up concept including wound care, medication, and social care is crucial and the key issue for an improved outcome. Smaller components and intensified psychosocial support ranked highest in questions about how to improve quality of life. Surprisingly, the future prospects of telemetric monitoring were not rated high in significance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide variability in the composition and tasks of VAD programs worldwide. Implementing a standard of care and improving psychosocial care as well as equipment is regarded most important to improve outcomes and quality of life. From the point of view of those responsible, the significance of telemetric monitoring seemed overrated.

When all Else Fails, Try This: The HeartMate III Left Ventricle Assist Device

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease. It is estimated that more than 250,000 patients suffer from advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction refractory to medical therapy. With limited donor pool for heart transplant, continue flow left ventricle assist device (LVAD) is a lifesaving treatment option for patients with advanced HF. This review will provide an update on indications, contraindications, and associated adverse events for LVAD support with a summary of the current outcomes data.

Longitudinal analysis of pump parameters over long-term support with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device

AIMS

Recurrence of heart failure emerged as the main cause of long-term mortality in patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD). We aimed at deriving a possible mechanistic rationale of clinical outcomes and analyzed longitudinal changes in pump parameters over prolonged HM3 support to investigate long-term effects of pump settings on left ventricular mechanics.

METHODS

Data on pump parameters (i.e. pump speed, estimated flow, and pulsatility index) were prospectively recorded in consecutive HM3 patients following postoperative rehabilitation (baseline) and then at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months of support.

RESULTS

Data of 43 consecutive patients were analyzed. Pump parameters were set according to regular patients' follow-up, including clinical and echocardiographic assessment. We recorded a significant progressive increase in pump speed over the course of support: from 5200 (5050-5300) rpm at baseline to 5400 (5300-5600) rpm at 60 months of support ( P  = 0.0007). Consistently with the increase in pump speed, a significant increase in pump flow ( P  = 0.007) and a decrease in pulsatility index ( P  = 0.005) were also recorded.

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal unique features of the HM3 on left ventricular activity. The need for progressive increase in pump support suggests indeed a lack of recovery and worsening of left ventricular function, which emerge as a possible mechanistic rationale of heart failure related mortality in HM3 patients. New algorithms to optimize pump settings should be envisioned to further improve LVAD-LV interaction and, ultimately, clinical outcomes in the HM3 population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03255928.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03255928.

The Impact of MOMENTUM 3 Trial Eligibility on Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes: A Real-World Experience

INTRODUCTION

Although the landmark MOMENTUM 3 trial was associated with excellent short-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) outcomes, many end-stage heart failure patients would not have met the trial eligibility criteria. Moreover, the outcomes of trial ineligible patients are poorly characterized. Therefore, we undertook this study to compare MOMENTUM 3 eligible and ineligible patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all primary LVAD implants from 2017 to 2022. Primary stratification was according to MOMENTUM 3 inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes included complications and length of stay. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to further characterize outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2022, 96 patients underwent primary LVAD implantation. Thirty-seven (38.54%) patients were trial eligible while 59 (61.46%) were ineligible. When stratified by trial eligibility, patients who were trial eligible had higher 1-year (80.15% versus 94.52%, P = 0.04) and 2-year survival (70.17% versus 94.52%, P = 0.02). Multivariable analysis showed that trial eligibility was protective of mortality at both 1 y (HR: 0.19 [0.04-0.99], P = 0.049) and 2 y (HR: 0.17 [0.03-0.81], P = 0.03). Although the groups had similar rates of bleeding, stroke, and right ventricular failure, trial ineligibility was associated with a longer periprocedural length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the majority of contemporary LVAD patients would not have been eligible for the MOMENTUM 3 trial. Ineligible patients have decreased but acceptable short-term survival. Our findings suggest that a simply reductionist approach to short-term mortality may improve outcomes but fail to capture the majority of patients who could benefit from therapy.

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).

Trends and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: JACC Focus Seminar

As the prevalence of advanced heart failure continues to rise, treatment strategies for select patients include heart transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, both of which improve quality of life and extend survival. Recently, the HeartMate 3 has been incorporated into clinical practice, the United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system was revised, and the management of LVAD-related complications has evolved. Contemporary LVAD recipients have greater preoperative illness severity, but survival is higher and adverse event rates are lower compared with prior eras. This is driven by advances in device design, patient selection, surgical techniques, and long-term management. However, bleeding, infection, neurologic events, and right ventricular failure continue to limit broader implementation of LVAD support. Ongoing efforts to optimize management of patients implanted with current devices and parallel development of next-generation devices are likely to further improve outcomes for patients with advanced heart failure.

Primary results of long-term outcomes in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial and continued access protocol study phase: a study of 2200 HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device implants

AIM

The MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial established superiority of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump, over the HeartMate II axial-flow pump. We now evaluate HM3 LVAD outcomes in a single-arm prospective continuous access protocol (CAP) post-pivotal trial study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 2200 HM3 implanted patients (515 pivotal trial and 1685 CAP patients) and compared outcomes including survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device (primary composite endpoint), overall survival and major adverse events at 2 years. The 2-year primary endpoint [76.7% vs. 74.8%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.08, P = 0.21] and overall survival (81.2% vs. 79.0%) were similar among CAP and pivotal cohorts despite sicker patients (more intra-aortic balloon pump use and INTERMACS profile 1) in CAP who were more often intended for destination therapy. Survival was similar between the CAP and pivotal trial in transplant ineligible patients (79.1% vs. 76.7%; adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16, P = 0.38). In a pooled analysis, the 2-year primary endpoint was similar between INTERMACS profiles 1-2 ('unstable' advanced heart failure), profile 3 ('stable' on inotropic therapy), and profiles 4-7 ('stable' ambulatory advanced heart failure) (75.7% vs. 77.6% vs. 72.9%, respectively). The net burden of adverse events was lower in CAP (adjusted rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98, P = 0.006), with consequent decrease in hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary results of accumulating HM3 LVAD experience suggest a lower adverse event burden and similar survival compared to the pivotal MOMENTUM 3 trial.