Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine patterns of care and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Canada., Background: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial, the use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was compared with usual care alone for patients with HFrEF in the United States and Canada. It remains unknown whether the country of enrollment had an impact on outcomes or GDMT use., Methods: A total of 894 patients at 45 sites across the United States and Canada with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in the trial. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by country of enrollment were developed for the trial outcomes, and log-rank testing was compared between the groups. GDMT use and titration were also compared., Results: U.S. patients were more likely to be younger, to be Black, to have higher body mass index, and to have histories of defibrillator placement or sleep apnea. Use of β-blockers was significantly higher in Canada at baseline (99.3% vs. 94.0%; p = 0.01) and 6 months (99.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.04), and use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was higher in Canada at 6 months (68.3% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.01). Canadian patients were less likely to experience the primary study endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.93; p = 0.01) due to decreased rates of HF hospitalization (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.003). The differences in outcomes were driven by increased heart failure hospitalization among U.S. Black patients., Conclusions: In GUIDE-IT, patients with HFrEF in Canada were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for heart failure. Differences in GDMT use, along with differences in sociodemographics and care delivery structures, may contribute to these differences, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in clinical trials. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUIDE-IT trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Additional substudies were supported by Roche Diagnostics. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the present study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr. Januzzi is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Applied Therapeutics; has received consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates in clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Desai works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay-for-performance programs; and has received research grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, The Medicines Company, Relypsa, Novartis, and SCPharmaceuticals. Dr. Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer Merck, Cytokinetics, and Myokardia; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Innolife, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, Eidos Therapeutics, Reprieve, and Sequana; and has served on clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-Wave, LivaNova, and Rocket Pharma. Dr. Fiuzat has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. O’Connor has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ahmad is a consultant for Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common in patients with end-stage heart failure receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but the benefit of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures (TVPs) remains uncertain. This study examined the impact of TVP at the time of LVAD implantation on clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) metrics., Methods: We included adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support database with various degrees of TR who received continuous-flow LVADs from 2008 to 2017. Patients undergoing concomitant TVP were compared with those without the intervention in a stratified analysis. Descriptive analyses, survival analyses, and Andersen‒Gill hazard models were used as appropriate to examine associations with clinical and patient-centered QOL outcomes., Results: Our analysis included 8,263 (53.1%) mild, 4,252 (33.3%) moderate, and 2,100 (13.5%) severe TR cases. TVP rate increased with severity: 8.6% of mild, 18.0% of moderate, and 43.9% of severe cases. TVP was not associated with survival benefit in cases of mild (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19, p = 0.75), moderate (aHR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20, p = 0.72), or severe (aHR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, p = 0.08) TR. For patients with combined moderate or severe TR, TVP was associated with increased mortality (log-rank p < 0.01, aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00-1.27, p = 0.04). After adjusting for TR severity, TVP was associated with increased risk of bleeding, arrhythmia, and stroke (p < 0.01 each) and no improvements in QOL (p > 0.05)., Conclusions: TVP at the time of LVAD implantation was not associated with either improved survival or QOL, and there were associations with increased risk of adverse events among patients with moderate and severe TR., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to use INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) results to evaluate sex differences in the use and clinical outcomes of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD)., Background: Despite a similar incidence of heart failure in men and women, prior studies have highlighted potential underuse of LVADs in women, and studies of clinical outcomes have yielded conflicting results., Methods: Patients were enrolled from the INTERMACS study who underwent implantation of their first continuous-flow LVAD between 2008 and 2017, and survival analyses stratified by sex were conducted., Results: Among the 18,868 patients, 3,984 (21.1%) were women. At 1 year, women were less likely to undergo heart transplantation than men (17.9% vs. 20.0%, respectively; p = 0.003). After multivariable adjustments, women had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.23; p < 0.001) and were more likely to incur post-implantation adverse events, including rehospitalization, bleeding, stroke, and pump thrombosis or device malfunction. Although women younger than 50 years of age had an increased risk of death compared to men of the same age (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.6), men and women 65 years of age and older had a similar risk of death (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.24)., Conclusions: This study found that women had a higher risk of mortality and adverse events after LVAD. Only 1 in 5 LVADs were implanted in women, and women were less likely to receive a heart transplant than men. Further investigation is needed to understand the causes of adverse events and potential underuse of advanced treatment options in women., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Psychiatric comorbidities play a key role in patient selection for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but their impact on clinical outcomes is unknown., Objectives: The goal of this study was to examine the clinical impact of psychiatric illness on outcomes in patients receiving LVADs for end-stage heart failure (HF)., Methods: The study identified adults in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support with psychiatric comorbidities (history of alcohol abuse, drug use, narcotic dependence, depression, and other major psychiatric diagnoses) receiving continuous-flow LVADs from 2008 to 2017. Demographic characteristics, survival, adverse events, and quality of life scores were compared for patients with and without each psychiatric comorbidity., Results: Over the study period, the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities was low: alcohol abuse, n = 1,093 (5.5%); drug use, n = 1,077 (5.4%); narcotic dependence, n = 96 (0.5%); depression, n = 401 (2.0%); and other major psychiatric illnesses, n = 265 (1.4%). Narcotic dependence (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.004) and other major psychiatric illnesses (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 1.9; p = 0.02) were associated with increased risk of mortality, whereas alcohol abuse, drug use, and depression were not. All comorbidities except narcotic dependence were associated with increased risk of rehospitalization and device-related infection (both p < 0.05). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores were lower from 6 to 24 months' post-implantation among patients with psychiatric comorbidities (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Despite a low prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities among LVAD recipients, these conditions were associated with mortality risk, adverse events, and poorer quality of life. Further study is needed to understand how specific psychiatric conditions affect outcomes and how to best manage this vulnerable patient population., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in older adults (>75 years of age)., Background: An aging heart failure population together with improvements in mechanical circulatory support (MCS) technology have led to increasing LVAD implantations in older adults. However, data presenting age-specific outcomes are limited., Methods: Adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) who required durable MCS between 2008 and 2017 were included. Patients were stratified by 4 age groups: <55 years of age, 55 to 64 years of age, and >75 years of age. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to assess post-LVAD outcomes, with log-rank testing used to compare groups. Univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine predictors of survival and complications., Results: A total of 20,939 individuals received an LVAD during the study period: 7,743 (37.0%) were <55 years of age, 6,755 (32.3%) were 55 to 64 years of age, 5,418 (25.9%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 1,023 (4.9%) were ≥75 years of age or older. After multivariate adjustment, adults ≥75 years of age had increased mortality post-LVAD implantation. Elderly patients with LVADs had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding but lower rates of device thrombosis. Compared to 84.5% of patients <55 years of age who were discharged home, only 46.8% of adults ≥75 years of age were discharged home following implantation (p < 0.001). Use of a RVAD, serum albumin level, and 6-min walk test distances were identified as predictors of outcomes in the oldest cohort., Conclusions: Despite careful selection of older adults for LVAD implantation, age remains a significant predictor of mortality. Higher bleeding and lower clotting risk in elderly patients with LVADs support the use of a less intense antithrombotic regimen in this unique population., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)