Defining Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure: MedaMACS and Beyond

An early relook identifies high-risk trajectories in ambulatory advanced heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Patients with ambulatory advanced heart failure (HF) are increasingly considered for durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and heart transplantation and their effective triage requires careful assessment of the clinical trajectory.

METHODS

REVIVAL, a prospective, observational study, enrolled 400 ambulatory advanced HF patients from 21 MCS/transplant centers in 2015-2016. Study design included a clinical re-assessment of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile within 120 days after enrollment. The prognostic impact of a worsening INTERMACS Profile assigned by the treating physician was assessed at 1 year after the Early Relook.

RESULTS

Early Relook was done in 325 of 400 patients (81%), of whom 24% had a worsened INTERMACS Profile, associated with longer HF history and worse baseline INTERMACS profile, but no difference in baseline LVEF (median 0.20), 6-minute walk, quality of life, or other baseline parameters. Early worsening predicted higher rate of the combined primary endpoint of death, urgent MCS, or urgent transplant by 1 year after Early Relook, (28% vs 15%), with hazard ratio 2.2 (95% CI 1.2- 3.8; p = .006) even after adjusting for baseline INTERMACS Profile and Seattle HF Model score. Deterioration to urgent MCS occurred in 14% vs 5% (p = .006) during the year after Early Relook.

CONCLUSIONS

Early Relook identifies worsening of INTERMACS Profile in a significant population of ambulatory advanced HF, who had worse outcomes over the subsequent year. Early reassessment of ambulatory advanced HF patients should be performed to better define the trajectory of illness and inform triage to advanced therapies.

Identifying Stage D Heart Failure: Data From the Most Recent Registries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Improving outcomes with durable mechanical circulatory support have led to expanding interest in the earlier recognition of patients destined to develop refractory heart failure (HF). The recognition of advanced HF has received increasing attention.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry developed patient profiles of advanced HF to describe the spectrum of patients with refractory HF undergoing mechanical circulatory support. These patient profiles have been extended to advanced HF patients on medical therapy and used to align outcomes with medical and device therapy in the Medical Arm of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (MedaMACS) registries and the ROADMAP study. Shared decision-making about treatment options for advanced HF requires individualized consideration of risks and benefits beyond survival. Future studies, including the ongoing Registry for Vital Information for VADs in Ambulatory Life (REVIVAL) study, will provide prognostic information for patients transitioning from stage C to stage D HF to help patients, caregivers, and physicians navigate the increasingly complex terrain of HF care.

Outcomes with ambulatory advanced heart failure from the Medical Arm of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (MedaMACS) Registry

BACKGROUND

The outlook for ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and the appropriate timing for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or transplant remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to better understand disease trajectory and rates of progression to subsequent LVAD therapy and transplant in ambulatory advanced HF.

METHODS

Patients with advanced HF who were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profiles 4 to 7, despite optimal medical therapy (without inotropic therapy), were enrolled across 11 centers and followed for the end-points of survival, transplantation, LVAD placement, and health-related quality of life. A secondary intention-to-treat survival analysis compared outcomes for MedaMACS patients with a matched group of Profile 4 to 7 patients with LVADs from the INTERMACS registry.

RESULTS

Between May 2013 and October 2015, 161 patients were enrolled with INTERMACS Profiles 4 (12%), 5 (32%), 6 (49%), and 7 (7%). By 2 years after enrollment, 75 (47%) patients had reached a primary end-point with 39 (24%) deaths, 17 (11%) undergoing LVAD implantation, and 19 (12%) receiving a transplant. Compared with 1,753 patients with Profiles 4 to 7 receiving LVAD therapy, there was no overall difference in intention-to-treat survival between medical and LVAD therapy, but survival with LVAD therapy was superior to medical therapy among Profile 4 and 5 patients (p = 0.0092). Baseline health-related quality of life was lower among patients receiving a LVAD than those enrolled on continuing oral medical therapy, but increased after 1 year for survivors in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory patients with advanced HF are at high risk for poor outcomes, with only 53% alive on medical therapy after 2 years of follow-up. Survival was similar for medical and LVAD therapy in the overall cohort, which included the lower severity Profiles 6 and 7, but survival was better with LVAD therapy among patients in Profiles 4 and 5. Given the poor outcomes in this group of advanced HF patients, timely consideration of transplant and LVAD is of critical importance.