Risk Factors for Adverse Outcome after HeartMate II Jennifer Cowger, MD, MS St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana Advanced Heart Failure, Transplant, & Mechanical Circulatory Support
Relevant Financial Relationship Disclosure Statement Jennifer A Cowger, MD, MS I will not discuss off label use and/or investigational use of the following drugs/devices: LVAD The following relevant financial relationships exist related to my role in this session: Consulting- Thoratec (unpaid)
FDA Approved Mechanical Circulatory Support Options in U.S in 2014 HeartMate II: 17000+ implants to date world wide HeartWare HVAD Novacor Others undergoing clinical and preclinical study
HMII Survival 85% 1YR n=169 pts 74% 1YR n=133 pts HMII-BTT PostFDA 1 HMII-DT PostFDA 2 1. Starling et al. JACC 2011;57:1890-9 2. Jorde, JACC 2014;63:1751-7.
Preoperative Correlates of Mortality for HMII
Preop HMII Risk Correlates HMRS 1 MELD 2 Other- univariable 1,3 Age Cr Cr RV failure PreopMCS Albumin INR INR Vasopressors Female Sex Center Volume Bilirubin INTERMACS profile Frailty 3 Destination Therapy HMRS = (0.0274 x [age]) (0.723 x [albumin g/dl]) + (0.74 x [creatinine]) + 1.136 x [INR]) + (0.807 x [center volume <15]) MELD = 9.57(log e Creatinine) + 3.78(log e Bilirubin) + 11.2(log e INR) + 6.43 1. Cowger et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:313-21 3. Dunlay, JHLT 2014;33:359-65 2. Cowger Matthews Circ 2010;121:214-20.
Predictors of Long-Term Survival Age (HR 1.3 [1.1-1.5]/10 yrs, p 0.003) Center volume >15 (HR 1.6 [1.0-2.6]) Operative Success Cowger JACC 2013;61:313-21 Survival controlling for above risks
Postoperative Contributors to HMII Mortality
AE for HMII by Device Indication Post-FDA BTT (n=169) n (event rate) Post-FDA DT (n=247) n (event rate) Bleeding 75 (1.44) Bleeding 133 ( 0.84) Infection 78 (1.00) Infection 186 (0.99) Stroke Hemorrhagic Ischemic 11 (0.08) 2 (0.01) 8 (0.06) Stroke Hemorrhagic Ischemic 29 (0.08) 19 (0.03) 10 (0.05) Rt Heart Failure 26 (0.18) Rt Heart Failure 44 (0.18) Renal Failure 17 (0.13) Renal Failure 44 (0.15) Hemolysis 5 (0.04) Hemolysis 16 (0.06) Pump thrombosis Pump Thrombosis 9 (0.03) Starling et al. JACC 2011;57:1890-9 Device Exchange Uriel, JACC 2014;63:1751-7
Increased Cumulative Incidence of HMII Device XC for Any Cause Kirklin et al. JHLT 2014;33;12-22.
Device XC for ANY Cause increases Mortality Kirklin et al. JHLT 2014;33;12-22.
HMII Device XC Increase: Driven by Thrombosis N=382 events in 6910 Kirklin et al. JHLT 2014;33;12-22.
HeartMate II: Device Configuration Flow through device impacted by: 1) Ao pressure: Hypertension 2) LVEDP: increased clot with higher LVEF or low LVEDP? 3) combined pressure loss across the inflow and outflow: graft kink, thrombus
Surgical Technique and HMII Pump Migration Taghavi, Ann Thoracic Surg 2013;96:1259-65
Inflow Canula Angle & Thrombosis HMII Pump Position and Thrombosis Inflow Angle Outflow Angle Pump Pocket Depth Taghavi, Ann Thoracic Surg 2013;96:1259-65
Inflow cannula depth and washing Cannula 0.8 cm wide Ong et al. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2013;10:35
Graft complications ΔP=20 mmhg
Neurologic Events 956 pts in BTT (n=405) and DT (n=551) trials Hemorrhagic stroke: 0.05 e/ppy Ischemic stroke: 0.04 e/ppy Boyle JACC 2014;63:880
Risk Correlates for Stroke Hemorrhagic 1 Female (HR 1.9 [1.1, 3.1]) 1 Age (HR 1.9 [1.2, 3.2]) Ischemic 1 Female (HR 1.8 [1.1, 3.3]) 1 Diabetes (HR 2.0 [1.2, 3.3]) 2 LDH >600 (HR 3.6 [1.6,8.0]) 1. Boyle JACC 2014;63:880 65 >65 2. Cowger JHLT 2014. 65 >65
Major Bleeding During HMII Bunte et al (n=145) Single center study >3 u first postop week or any thereafter- 1.1 event/ppy Boyle et al (n=956) BTT and DT trial pts Bleeding > 2u- 0.67 event/ppy Bunte, JACC 2013;62:2188 Boyle JACC 2014;63:880
Bleeding on HMII Early bleeding: Thoracic and undetermined Late bleeding: GI and CNS Hazard function Bunte, Jacc 2013;62:2188
Risk factors for bleeding Age >65 yrs (HR 1.3 [1.1-1.6]) Preop HCT <31% (HR 1.31 [1.0-1.6]) ISCM (HR 1.35 [1.1-1.7]) Female sex (HR 1.45 [1.1-1.8) PA Systolic pressures: β=1.9 ±0.86 Bilirubin: β=0.71± 0.23 (p 0.002)?Liver and RV dysfunction AVM 1. Bunte, JACC 2013;62:2188 2. Boyle JACC 2014;63:880
Conclusions HMII is has inherent design differences from other FDA approved devices It is reasonable to expect different complication profiles Long term success on LVAD support is difficult to predict preoperatively and is impacted by Operative success Complications during VAD support Pt comorbidities/frailty
Conclusions A better understanding of HMII complications will require granular data on: Location and true burden of insitu clot formation at the time of all device explants Preoperative comorbidities center volume Anticoagulation regimens