Search

Objective: The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was recently validated in the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 to predict patient-specific survival in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device candidates. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score stratifies individuals into tertiles according to survival probability., Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device recipients between September 2017 and August 2022. Baseline characteristics were collected from the electronic medical records. HeartMate 3 survival risk scores were calculated for all eligible patients. One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted. A univariate and multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify predictors., Results: A total of 181 patients were included in this final analysis. The median age was 62 years, 83% were male, and 26% were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1. The mean HeartMate 3 survival risk score for the entire cohort was 2.66 ± 0.66. Two-year survivals in the high, average, and low survival groups were 93.5% ± 3.2%, 81.6% ± 7.4%, and 82.0% ± 6.6%, respectively. As a continuous variable, the unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.45; P = .029). The areas under the curve were 0.70 and 0.66 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate the discriminatory ability of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score using the original stratification, but we found significantly increased survival in the high survival group using a binary cutoff (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.01-20.9; P = .038)., Conclusions: The unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was associated with postimplant survival in patients outside of the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 but did not remain an independent predictor after adjusting for ischemic etiology and severe diabetes. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was able to identify patients at high survival using a binary cutoff, but we were unable to demonstrate its discriminatory ability among the previously published risk tertiles., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Dr Uriel is on the medical advisory board for Livemetric, Revamp, and Leviticus. Center for Advanced Cardiac Care at Columbia University Irving Medical Center receives grant support from CareDx and Abbott. Dr Sayer has been a consultant for Abbott and is on the medical advisory board for CareDx. Dr Clerkin receives National Institutes of Health grant support K23 HL148528 and the Nelson Family Grant. Dr Topkara receives National Institutes of Health grant support (HL146964). Dr Moeller receives a grant from ISHLT and CareDx. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Although extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increasingly been used for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), the outcomes of those successfully weaned from support remain poorly defined., Methods: Of 510 venoarterial ECLS CS patients at our institution between January 2015 and December 2020, 249 were decannulated and survived for 30 days or until discharge (ie, successfully weaned). Factors associated with survival to discharge were assessed and 1-year survival was described., Results: Of 510 eligible CS ECLS patients, 249 (48.8%) were successfully decannulated, 227 (44.5%) died during/following ECLS, and 34 (6.7%) were bridged to heart transplantation or a ventricular assist device. Patients with a primary graft dysfunction etiology of CS had a greater chance of successful decannulation (odds ratio [OR], 3.088; 95% CI, 1.1-8.671; P = .0323), whereas patients with ECLS during cardiopulmonary resuscitation had a reduced chance of successful decannulation (OR, 0.354; 95% CI, 0.17-0.735; P = .0054). Of successfully decannulated patients, 218 (87.6%) survived to hospital discharge and 31 (12.4%) died in the hospital. Acute myocardial infarction etiology (OR, 4.751; 95% CI, 1.623-13.902; P = .0044), preexisting chronic kidney disease (OR, 3.422; 95% CI, 1.374-8.52; P = .0082), and initiation of continuous renal replacement therapies (OR, 3.188; 95% CI, 1.291-7.871; P = .012) were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality despite successful decannulation. One-year survival in successfully decannulated patients surviving to hospital discharge was 95.0% and comparable to 1-year survival in patients who received a heart transplant or ventricular assist device., Conclusions: Successful decannulation can be achieved in a significant proportion of patients treated with ECLS for CS but does not guarantee survival to hospital discharge. However, 1-year survival of hospital survivors remains high and is comparable to patients bridged to transplant or a ventricular assist device., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare 3-year survival and readmissions of patients who received the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or underwent orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) as primary treatment for advanced heart failure., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 381 adult patients who received an HM3 LVAD or were listed for OHT between January 2014 and March 2021 at our center. To minimize crossover bias, OHT recipients with a prior LVAD were excluded, and HM3 patients were censored at the time of transplant. Cohorts were propensity score-matched to reduce confounding variables. The primary outcome was 3-year survival, and the secondary outcome was mean cumulative all-cause unplanned readmission., Results: The study population comprised 185 HM3 patients (49%) and 196 OHT patients (51%), with 104 propensity score-matched patients in each group. After propensity score matching, there was no statistical difference in 3-year survival (83.7% for HM3 vs 87.0% for OHT; P = .91; relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-2.20). In the unmatched cohorts, patients age 18 to 49 years had comparable survival with HM3 and OHT (96.9% vs 95.9%; N = 91; P = 1.00; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.09-9.78). Patients age 50+ years had slightly inferior survival with HM3 (75.0% vs 83.9%; N = 290; P = .60; RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.85-2.68). The mean number of readmissions at 3 years was higher in the HM3 group (3.89 vs 2.05; P < .001)., Conclusions: This exploratory analysis suggests that for similar patients, HM3 may provide comparable 3-year survival to OHT as a primary treatment for heart failure but may result in more readmissions., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist system is manufactured by Abbott. P.C. serves as an Abbott consultant without honoraria and has received an Abbott research grant. G.S. receives consulting fees from Abbott and Medtronic. N.U. receives grant support from and serves as a consultant for Abbott and Medtronic. Y.N. serves as consultant for Abbott. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Our study assesses differences between male and female patients placed on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock., Method: We retrospectively analyzed 574 adult patients placed on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock at our institution between January 2007 and December 2018. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were assessed. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include limb ischemia, limb ischemia interventions, distal perfusion cannula placement, stroke, bleeding, and continuous venovenous hemofiltration initiation., Results: There were 394 male patients (69%) and 180 female patients (31%). After adjusting for baseline differences, propensity score matching compared 171 male patients with 171 female patients. No difference was seen between men and women in in-hospital mortality (60.2% vs 56.7%; P = .59), limb ischemia (47.4% vs 45.6%; P = .83), limb ischemia surgery (15.2% vs 12.9%; P = .64), bleeding (49.7% vs 49.1%; P = 1), continuous venovenous hemofiltration initiation (39.2% vs 32.7%; P = .26), and stroke (8.2% vs 9.4%; P = .85). Multivariable logistic regression showed that female patients who died were more likely to have had chronic kidney disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-6.53; P = .032) than surviving women. Male patients who died were more likely to have had coronary artery disease (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.34-3.78; P = .002) and higher lactate levels (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.21; P < .001) than surviving men. Women with cardiac transplant primary graft dysfunction were more likely to survive (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.27; P = .001), whereas men with cardiac transplant primary graft dysfunction were less likely to survive (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007), than patients with other shock etiologies., Conclusions: After adjusting for baseline difference, there was no difference in outcomes between male and female patients despite differing risk profiles for in-hospital mortality., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)