A network meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies on left ventricular assist devices in adult patients with end-stage heart failure

Heartware ventricular assist device versus HeartMate II versus HeartMate III in advanced heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Ventricular assist device is one of the treatment options for heart failure patients. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to aid in clinical decision-making of exchanging previous older ventricular assist device models to the newest one, HM3.

Methods

The search was conducted across several databases until February 25, 2023, and was registered with the ID of CRD42023405367. Risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. In order to rank and evaluate the pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, we employed conventional and Bayesian network meta-analysis converted to surface under the cumulative ranking.

Results

A total of 49 studies with 31,105 patients were included in this review. HM3 is the best device exchange choice that causes the lowest risk of mortality (HM3 (99.98) > HM2 (32.43) > HVAD (17.58)), cerebrovascular accidents (HM3 (99.99) > HM2 (42.41) > HVAD (7.60)), other neurologic events beside cerebrovascular accident (HM3 (91.45) > HM2 (54.16) > HVAD (4.39)), pump thrombosis (HM3 (100.00) > HM2 (39.20) > HVAD (10.80)), and bleeding (HM3 (97.12) > HM2 (47.60) > HVAD (5.28)). HM3 is also better than HM2 in hospital admissions (OR: 1.90 (95% CI: 1.15-3.12)). When complications were present, HM2 or Heartware ventricular assist devices exchange to HM3 lowered the mortality rate compared to exchanging it to the same device type.

Conclusion

HM3 is the best device for all six outcomes. Exchange from Heartware ventricular assist devices or HM2 to HM3 rather than the same ventricular assist device type is recommended only if a complication is present.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for advanced heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Selected patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation could benefit from left ventricular assist device therapy as 'destination therapy'. There is evidence of the efficacy of destination therapy; however, it is not currently commissioned within the United Kingdom National Health Service due to the lack of economic evidence.

Objective

What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a left ventricular assist device compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation (destination therapy)?

Methods

A systematic review of evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy was undertaken including, where feasible, a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect estimate of the relative effectiveness of currently available left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management. For the systematic reviews, data sources searched (up to 11 January 2022) were Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid for primary studies, and Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant systematic reviews. Trial registers were also searched, along with data and reports from intervention-specific registries. Economic studies were identified in EconLit, CEA registry and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The searches were supplemented by checking reference lists of included studies. An economic model (Markov) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. Where possible, all analyses focused on the only currently available left ventricular assist device (HeartMate 3TM, Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in the United Kingdom.

Results

The clinical effectiveness review included 134 studies (240 articles). There were no studies directly comparing HeartMate 3 and medical management (a randomised trial is ongoing). The currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival and reduces stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. For example, survival at 24 months is 77% with the HeartMate 3 device compared to 59% with the HeartMate II (MOMENTUM 3 trial). An indirect comparison demonstrated a reduction in mortality compared to medical management [relative risk of death 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); 24 months; this study]. The cost-effectiveness review included 5 cost analyses and 14 economic evaluations covering different generations of devices and with different perspectives. The reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to medical management were lower for later generations of devices [as low as £46,207 (2019 prices; United Kingdom perspective; time horizon at least 5 years)]. The economic evaluation used different approaches to obtain the relative effects of current left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. All gave similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £53,496-58,244 per quality-adjusted life-year gained - lifetime horizon. Model outputs were sensitive to parameter estimates relating to medical management. The findings did not materially differ on exploratory subgroup analyses based on the severity of heart failure.

Limitations

There was no direct evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of HeartMate 3 to medical management. Indirect comparisons made were based on limited data from heterogeneous studies regarding the severity of heart failure (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score distribution) and possible for survival only. Furthermore, the cost of medical management of advanced heart failure in the United Kingdom is not clear.

Conclusions

Using cost-effectiveness criteria applied in the United Kingdom, left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplant may not be cost-effective. When available, data from the ongoing evaluation of HeartMate 3 compared to medical management can be used to update cost-effectiveness estimates. An audit of the costs of medical management in the United Kingdom is required to further decrease uncertainty in the economic evaluation.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020158987.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128996) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Microembolic signal monitoring in patients with HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices: Association with antithrombotic treatment and cerebrovascular events

BACKGROUND

In patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke are dreaded complications. Predictive markers for these events are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictive value of microembolic signals (MES) for stroke, detected by Transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD) in patients with HeartMate 3 (HM 3) or HeartWare (HW).

METHODS

A thirty-minute bilateral TCD monitoring of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) was performed in 62 outpatients with LVAD (HM 3 N = 31, HW N = 31) and 31 healthy controls. Prevalence and quantity of MES were investigated regarding clinical and laboratory parameters. Cerebrovascular events (CVE) were recorded on follow-up at 90 and 180 days.

RESULTS

MES were detected in six patients with HM 3, three patients with HW, and three controls. Within the LVAD groups, patients on monotherapy with vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA) without antiplatelet therapy were at risk for a higher count of MES (negative binomial regression: VKA: 1; VKA + ASA: Exp(B) = 0.005, 95%CI 0.001-0.044; VKA + clopidogrel: Exp(B) = 0.012, 95%CI 0.002-0.056). There was no association between the presence of MES and CVE or death on follow-up (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For the first time, the prevalence of MES was prospectively investigated in a notable outpatient cohort of patients with HM 3 and HW. Despite optimized properties of the latest LVAD, MES remain detectable depending on antithrombotic therapy. No association between MES and CVE could be detected.

Outcomes of Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Managed With an Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Before Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Patients are admitted to the hospital for hemodynamic optimization before left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of hemodynamic optimization using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in ambulatory heart failure patients before LVAD placement. This retrospective single-center study included 199 noninotrope-dependent patients who underwent durable LVAD implantation between January 1, 2007 and April 10, 2017. Invasive hemodynamic as well as the primary composite end-point of stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury, right ventricular failure, and 30-day mortality were compared between patients with and without an IABP. Median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR], 57-71) years and 165 (82.9%) were male; 72 (36.2%) received an IABP. Patients treated with an IABP had worse baseline exercise capacity and hemodynamic parameters. Patients with an IABP had greater relative reduction in pulmonary artery mean pressure (-16% vs. -2%; p ≤ 0.001). The primary composite end-point was not different between patients who had an IABP and those who did not (20.8% vs. 20.5%; p = 0.952), as were each of the individual end-points. Despite worse baseline hemodynamic parameters and exercise capacity, ambulatory heart failure patients who received an IABP before LVAD implantation had more favorable reductions in pulmonary artery pressures without an increase in the composite end-point. These results suggest that IABP use before LVAD implantation may mitigate the risk of postoperative complications in ambulatory patients.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus orthotopic heart transplantation in adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Due to the lack of donor hearts, many studies have assessed the prognosis of heart failure (HF) patients treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD). However, previous results have not been consistent and minimal data is available regarding long-term outcomes. There is no consensus on whether CF-LVAD as a bridge or destination therapy (DT) can equal orthotopic heart transplantation (HTx). The purpose of our study is to compare clinical outcomes between CF-LVAD and HTx in adults.

Methods

We searched controlled trials from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until July 1, 2020. The mortality at different time points and adverse events were analyzed among 12 included studies.

Results

No significant differences were found in mortality at one-year [odds ratio (OR) =1.08; 95% CI: 0.97-1.21], two-year (OR =1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.12), three-year (OR =1.02; 95% CI: 0.69-1.51), and five-year (OR =1.02; 95% CI: 0.93-1.11), as well as the comparison of stroke, bleeding, and infection between CF-LVAD as a bridge versus HTx. The pooled analysis of one-year mortality (OR =2.76; 95% CI: 0.38-20.18) and two-year mortality (OR =1.64; 95% CI: 0.22-12.23) revealed no significant difference between CF-LVAD DT and HTx. Comparisons of adverse events showed no differences in bleeding or infection, but a higher risk of stroke (OR =5.09; 95% CI: 1.74-14.84) for patients treated with CF-LVAD DT than with HTx.

Conclusions

CF-LVAD as a bridge results in similar outcomes as HTx within five years. CF-LVAD as a DT is associated with similar one-year and two-year mortality, but carries a higher risk of stroke, as compared with HTx.

Perioperative Management of Severe Acquired Coagulopathy in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Device—a Literature Review and Expert Recommendations

Purpose of This Review

The implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is associated with high hemorrhage-related re-exploration rates. Improved management of coagulopathy may improve patient outcome. The optimal management of acquired coagulopathy in LVAD patients needing urgent non-cardiac surgery needs to be defined. We aim to review risk factors for perioperative bleeding and diagnosis and management of LVAD-associated coagulopathy and to provide expert recommendations for clinical practice.

Recent Findings

In patients undergoing LVAD implantation, the severity of coagulopathy is directly related to the severity of the cardiac failure. The evidence from current literature for optimal management of acquired coagulopathy during and after LVAD implantation is sparse. The traditional transfusion strategy of replacing coagulation factors with fresh frozen plasma involves the risk of transfusion-associated circulatory overload. Current recommendations for targeted replacement of coagulation factors with 4-factor prothrombin concentrate and fibrinogen concentrate in cardiac surgery may be translated in this special setting.

Summary

The targeted, point-of-care use of concentrated coagulation factors may improve treatment of severe acquired coagulopathy during LVAD implantation and in LVAD patients needing urgent non-cardiac surgery.

Early versus standard renal replacement therapy after left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

Renal function may improve after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant, however, some patients develop postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Randomized trials showed benefit for early renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients with AKI, but this practice has not been studied in LVAD patients.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all adults (>18 years) who underwent LVAD placement from 1/2010 to 12/2018. We collected preoperative, hemodynamic, echocardiographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data. AKI was defined according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes definition. Early (E) RRT was considered treatment at AKI stage II or below. Standard (S) RRT was considered treatment at AKI stage III. Outcomes and Kaplan-Meier analysis were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were included (mean age 56.10 years, 81% males, 30.4% African-American race). A total of 71 (38.6%) developed AKI and 17 (9.24%) needed RRT (11 E vs 6 S). A total of 11 remained hemodialysis-dependent at discharge (5 [45.5%] in E vs 6 [100%] in S, P = .043). There was a trend toward shorter intensive care unit stay and ventilation time in E group, and overall hospital stay was significantly less in the E group (48.18 ± 25.95 vs 94.00 ± 53.07 days, P = .028). Thirty-day mortality was similar between groups (E 18% vs S 16%, P = .9), but there was a trend toward improved overall survival in the E group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to examine early initiation of RRT after LVAD implant. Early RRT was associated with shorter hospital stay, lower need for permanent RRT, and a trend toward improved survival. This practice may provide significant cost savings and should be examined further.

Trends in HeartMate 3: What we know so far

BACKGROUND

The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a novel, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow pump with a fully magnetically-levitated rotor designed to provide hemodynamic support in patients with end-stage heart failure. Unique aspects of this LVAD have allowed for improved hemocompatibility and the development of minimally-invasive implantation techniques.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for publications relating to the HeartMate 3 device, with a focus on hemocompatibility related outcomes, anticoagulation management, and surgical techniques.

RESULTS

Nine articles analyzing hemocompatibility related outcomes from two clinical trials, two clinical studies, and one registry series were identified.

CONCLUSION

HeartMate 3 has reduced the rate of disabling stroke and pump thrombosis. However, despite increased hemocompatibility due to specialized design features, the residual risk of both surgical, and gastrointestinal bleeding remains a major adverse outcome. Different anticoagulation management and surgical techniques have been evaluated to address the remaining complications.