Desai, Shashank

AbstractMacitentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) approved for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). SOPRANO evaluated the efficacy and safety of macitentan versus placebo in pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. SOPRANO was a phase 2, multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study. Patients with an LVAD implanted within the prior 90 days who had persistent PH (i.e., mean pulmonary arterial pressure ≥25 mmHg, pulmonary artery wedge pressure [PAWP] ≤18 mmHg, and pulmonary vascular resistance [PVR] >3 Wood units [WU]) were randomized (1:1) to macitentan 10 mg or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in PVR. Secondary endpoints included change in right‐heart catheterization hemodynamic variables, N‐terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels, World Health Organization functional class, and safety/tolerability. Fifty‐seven patients were randomized to macitentan (n = 28) or placebo (n = 29). A statistically significant reduction in PVR from baseline to Week 12 was observed with macitentan versus placebo (placebo‐corrected geometric mean ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.94; p = .0158). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary endpoints. In a post‐hoc analysis, 66.7% of patients receiving macitentan achieved PVR <3 WU versus 40.0% receiving placebo (p = .0383). Macitentan was generally well tolerated; adverse events were consistent with those in previous PAH studies with macitentan. In conclusion, macitentan showed promising tolerability and significantly reduced PVR in PH patients with persistently elevated PVR after LVAD implantation. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT02554903.

Introduction: Age ≥ 70 is used to exclude patients from cardiac transplantation. Elderly patients may be offered left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy as an alternative. It remains poorly defined how they respond to LVAD support. Hypothesis: Elderly patients have LVAD outcomes that are non-inferior to younger patients. Methods: Data on 1,149 continuous-flow LVAD recipients from May 2004 to May 2015 was pooled from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network (MCSRN). Groups were assigned based on Age ≥ 70 (n = 163) and < 70 (n = 986). Results: Patients age ≥ 70 were more likely to be male (91%), have an ischemic cardiomyopathy (71%), atrial fibrillation (41%), hypertension (66%), diabetes (38%) and prior sternotomy (45%). Older patients also had a lower BMI and higher creatinine, 26.7 ± 0.4 v. 29.9 ± 0.5 and 1.46 ± 0.04 v. 1.35 ± 0.02, p < 0.05. The hazard ratio for mortality was highest in elderly patients in the early post-operative period and stabilized over time with no long-term differences in survival, p = 0.18, Figure 1a. Elderly patients had equivalent rates of device thrombosis and stroke, p = 0.47 and 0.44, Figures 1b-c. Survival free of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) at 1-year was 58% in elderly patients compared to 69% in younger patients, Figure 1d, p < 0.01. Multivariate cox regression revealed that age ≥ 70 was not a significant predictor of mortality (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 - 1.25, p = 0.62), but pre-operative creatinine (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.28 - 1.86, p < 0.01) and bilirubin (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.4, p = 0.02) were. When age was considered a continuous variable, the HR was 1.2 (95% CI 1.07 - 1.3 per 10y, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Elderly patients, age ≥ 70, have equivalent long-term survival after LVAD implantation with similar rates of device thrombosis and stroke. Rates of GIB were higher in the elderly and this finding warrants caution when choosing anti-coagulation protocols in the elderly. Overall age ≥ 70 does not portend a poorer survival after LVAD implant.

Introduction: Axial and centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have varied response to changes in loading conditions. Whether ventricular size modulates the response to LVAD therapy between the axial flow Heartmate II (HMII) and centrifugal flow Heartware (HVAD) is unknown. Hypothesis: Adverse event and survival rates between devices are affected by recipient pre-op left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD). Methods: Data on 1,149 continuous-flow LVAD recipients from May 2004 to May 2015 was pooled from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network (MCSRN). The effect of pre-op LVEDD on the instantaneous hazard of death and adverse events was evaluated between HMII (n=864) and HVAD (n=283). Results: The average LVEDD was 7.0cm and did not differ between the device recipients. Patients with a smaller LVEDD (≤ 6.3cm) were more likely female 39% v. 24% (p < 0.0001) and to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy (30% v. 24%, p = 0.045). For every 1cm increase in pre-op LVEDD, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality increased with HVAD (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.94-1.82, p = 0.005) and decreased with HMII (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, p = 0.005), Figure 1a. Other predictors of mortality included age (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12 - 1.53 per 10y, p < 0.001) and bilirubin (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.42 per mg/dL, p = 0.027). LVEDD by device type interaction was not a significant predictor of gastrointestinal bleeding or pump thrombosis. The risk of stroke increased with LVEDD for HVAD and decreased for HMII, but this did not reach statistical significance, Figure 1b. Ischemic etiology of heart failure (HR 1.7 95% CI 1.14 - 2.55, p = 0.01) and HVAD device use (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.00 - 2.17, p = 0.03) were significant predictors of stroke. Conclusions: Our data suggest important differences exist in patient outcomes between HMII and HVAD based on pre-op ventricular size. Studies are needed to determine if these differences in outcome are due to device or flow-specific differences in patient support.

Abstract Various risk models with differing discriminatory power and predictive accuracy have been used to predict right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. There remains an unmet need for a contemporary risk score for continuous flow (CF)‐LVADs. We sought to independently validate and compare existing risk models in a large cohort of patients and develop a simple, yet highly predictive risk score for acute, severe RVF. Data from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network (MCSRN) registry, consisting of patients who underwent CF‐LVAD implantation, were randomly divided into equal‐sized derivation and validation samples. RVF scores were calculated for the entire sample, and the need for a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) was the primary endpoint. Candidate predictors from the derivation sample were subjected to backward stepwise logistic regression until the model with lowest Akaike information criterion value was identified. A risk score was developed based on the identified variables and their respective regression coefficients. Between May 2004 and September 2014, 734 patients underwent implantation of CF‐LVADs [HeartMate II LVAD, 76% ( n = 560), HeartWare HVAD, 24% ( n = 174)]. A RVAD was required in 4.5% ( n = 33) of the patients [Derivation cohort, n = 15 (4.3%); Validation cohort, n = 18 (5.2%); P = 0.68)]. 19.5% of the patients ( n = 143) were female, median age at implant was 59 years (IQR, 49.4–65.3), and median INTERMACS profile was 3 (IQR, 2–3). RVAD was required in 4.5% ( n = 33) of the patients. Correlates of acute, severe RVF in the final model included heart rate, albumin, BUN, WBC, cardiac index, and TR severity. Areas under the curves (AUC) for most commonly used risk predictors ranged from 0.61 to 0.78. The AUC for the new model was 0.89 in the derivation and 0.92 in the validation cohort. Proposed risk model provides very high discriminatory power predicting acute severe right ventricular failure and can be reliably applied to patients undergoing placement of contemporary continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.