Analysis of Pump Thrombosis in the Intermacs Database

Similar documents
Risk Factors for Adverse Outcome after HeartMate II Jennifer Cowger, MD, MS St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana

MCSD Pump Thrombosis : Industry Perspective

Diagnosis of Device Thrombosis

How do Readmissions Impact Survival among Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices? Findings from INTERMACS

What has INTERMACS Taught Us about Patient Outcomes with Durable MCS? James K. Kirklin, MD

Disclosures. No disclosures to report

HeartWare ADVANCE Bridge to Transplant Trial and Continued Access Protocol Update

LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE COMPLICATIONS. Daniel Vargas, MD Section of Cardiothoracic Imaging University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

LVAD Complications, Recovery

Concomitant Aortic Valve Procedures in Patients Undergoing Implantation of Continuous-Flow LVADs: An INTERMACS Database Analysis

Complications of Left Ventricular Assist Device Chronic Support. Dr. Tal Hasin RMC, Beilinson, Petach-Tiqva, Israel

Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS): What Every Pharmacist Needs to Know!

Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting

Mechanical Cardiac Support in Acute Heart Failure. Michael Felker, MD, MHS Associate Professor of Medicine Director of Heart Failure Research

Regional Differences in Utilization and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Insights from the INTERMACS Registry

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant. Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery. James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD

Echo in Heart Failure

Safety Evaluation of the Pericardial HeartWare MVAD System

Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) Long Term Outcomes

Destination Therapy SO MUCH DATA IN SUCH A SMALL DEVICE. HeartWare HVAD System The ONLY intrapericardial VAD approved for DT.

Pump thrombosis A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

The Balancing Act Bleeding and Thrombosis in MCS. Muhammad Adil Soofi

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device. Final Report of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial

Adverse Event. Adverse Event Status. Please enter the date of the event you are reporting: Please enter a label describing this event:

Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients

Multiple case reports of successful use, with only one case report of intra device thrombotic event

Size Limitation for Current Continuous Flow Pumps: How young can we go?

HEARTMATE 3 LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST SYSTEM

EMS: Care of the VAD Patient. Brittany Butzler BSN RN VAD Coordinator Froedtert and the Medical College of WI

3/23/2018. Complications of VAD Therapy: Arrhythmias. Disclosures. Agenda. I have no relevant disclosures

Unexpected Abrupt Increase in Left Ventricular Assist Device Thrombosis

Modern Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVAD) : An Intro, Complications, and Emergencies

Recent Trials With Durable LVADs: Is There a Superior Device?

Strengthening Your VAD Program

Adverse Event - Intermacs

Mechanical Circulatory Support in the Management of Heart Failure

VAD come Destination therapy nell adulto con Scompenso Cardiaco

Lessons learned from ENDURANCE, ROADMAP, MedaMACS, and how to go forward?

QUICK REFERENCE HEARTWARE HVAD PUMP FLOW INDEX

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 60, No. 1, by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN /$36.

HeartWare ventricular assist system for bridge to transplant: Combined results of the bridge to transplant and continued access protocol trial

Left Ventricular Assist Devices LVAD. North Country EMS Program Agency 3/21/12

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH CARE HOSPITALS AND CLINICS

EMS and Nursing Considerations in VAD Patient Care

Berlin Heart Pediatric Assistance Device: The Beginnings, The Teachings And The Cruising Speed : A Monocentric Experience With The Same System

Japanese Multicenter Outcomes With the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device in Patients With Small Body Surface Area

End-Stage Heart Failure Care: Advances in Technology and Patient Survival

Japanese Multicenter Outcomes With the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device in Patients With Small Body Surface Area

Circulatory Support: From IABP to LVAD

Jennifer A. Brown The Cleveland Clinic School of Perfusion Cleveland, Ohio

Challenges to MCS Use in the Middle East

เอกราช อร ยะช ยพาณ ชย

Status of Implantable VADs

Left ventricular assist device exchange for the treatment of HeartMate II pump thrombosis

What s New in MCS. and Transplantation. June Transplantation. Reviews:

Overview of MCS in Bruce B Reid, MD Surgical Director Artificial Heart Program/Heart Transplantation

AUTOLOGS TM ATLAS ON DEMAND DATA WITH EVERY PATIENT VISIT

Adverse Event. Adverse Event Status. version date: 12/10/ of 21. Please enter the date of the event you are reporting:

WHAT S NEW IN HEART FAILURE

FEATURE. 58 EMERGENCY MEDICINE I FEBRUARY

The Who, How and When of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies. Disclosures. What is Advanced Heart Failure?

Evaluation and treatment of pump thrombosis and hemolysis

Mechanical Support in the Failing Fontan-Kreutzer

Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs): Overview and Future Directions

Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support - What to Use

Why Children Are Not Small Adults? Treatment of Pediatric Patients Needing Mechanical Circulatory Support

1/21/2016. HeartMate II Indications for Use. Ventricular Assist Device Overview. Jon G. Echterling MSN, CCRN, FNP-BC. Learning Objectives

Advances in Advanced Heart Failure Therapies. Disclosures. Management Algorithm for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock

HEARTMATE 3 LVAD WITH FULL MAGLEV FLOW TECHNOLOGY THEIR FUTURE STARTS WITH YOU

Right Ventricular Failure: Prediction, Prevention and Treatment

New Trends and Indications for LVADs

Ray Matthews MD Professor of Clinical Medicine Chief of Cardiology University of Southern California

Heart Transplantation

Adverse Event Not Started

Intrapericardial Left Ventricular Assist Device for Advanced Heart Failure

Artificial Heart Program

Echocardiographic Structural Assessment Pre- LVAD

Readmissions: an unavoidable nemesis

None. Declaration of conflict of interest

How to Develop a Comprehensive Ventricular Assist Device Program

Novel Devices for End-Stage Heart Failure

Adverse Event - Pedimacs

Left Ventricular Assist Device: What Should I Report?

PROVEN. TRUSTED. COMMITTED. HeartWare HVAD System

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Unstable Heart Failure

Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS)

ECMO as a bridge to durable LVAD therapy. Jonathan Haft, MD Department of Cardiac Surgery University of Michigan

Ventricular Assist Devices for Permanent Therapy: Current Status and Future

Heart Failure Medical and Surgical Treatment

Facts. STRONG Risk Factors for HF* LVAD, BiVAD, RVAD, HVAD 10/21/ million adults in the US have heart failure.

Outpatient Treatment of MCS Patient. F. Bennett Pearce, MD Professor of Pediatrics Med Director Heart Transplant COA

Do we really need an Artificial Heart? No!! John V. Conte, MD, Professor of Surgery Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Alexander M. Bernhardt a, *, Theo M.M.H. De By b, Hermann Reichenspurner a and Tobias Deuse a. Abstract INTRODUCTION


Veno-Venous ECMO Support. Chris Cropsey, MD Sept. 21, 2015

LVADs as a long term or destination therapy for the advanced heart failure

Case - Advanced HF and Shock (INTERMACS 1)

When to implant VAD in patients with heart transplantation indication. Aldo Cannata Dept of Cardiac Surgery Niguarda Ca Granda Hospital Milano

Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination Therapy

From Recovery to Transplant: One Patient's Journey

Transcription:

Analysis of Pump Thrombosis in the Intermacs Database Michael Acker William Measey Professor of Surgery Chief of Division of Cardiovascular Surgery Director of Heart and Vascular Center University of Pennsylvania Health System 1

Disclosures Consultant for Thoratec and Heartware 2

Perceived increase in incidence of HMII pump thrombosis after 2011 by several large VAD centers compared to HMII pivotal trial FDA/NHLBI request Intermacs to investigate 3

Figure 1 Overall Survival % Survival Months post implant % Survival 1 95% 3 91% 6 87% 12 80% 24 69% 36 58% 48 46% n=6910, deaths=1772 Event: Death with a device in place (censored at transplant and recovery) Months post implant 4

Figure 2 No change in survival by Implant year p(overall) =.63 % Survival Implant Year n Deaths (with a device in place) 2008 459 139 2009 866 247 2010 1585 522 2011 1845 481 2012 2155 383 Totals 6910 1772 Event: Death with a device in place (censored at transplant and recovery) Months post implant 5

Figure 3 % Freedom from Device Exchange p(overall) <.0001 Implant Year n Events 2008 459 38 2009 866 60 2010 1585 158 2011 1845 157 2012 2155 148 Totals 6910 561 Increase in pump exchange per year Event: Device Exchange (censored at death, transplant and recovery) Months post implant 6

Table 1 Device Removal Events n Removed (exchanged) due to a problem 561 Thrombus 288 Elective 94 Emergent 177 Unknown 17 Probable Thrombus 49 Elective 25 Emergent 21 Unknown 3 Infection (Not thrombus) 76 Elective 38 Emergent 11 Unknown 27 Not Thrombus/Unknown Infection 120 Elective 52 Emergent 68 Not Thrombus/Not Infection 28 Unknown 28 Main Event Exchanges or deaths due to thrombus n=382 Device removed due to recovery 133 Death: Device not functionally normally 98 Thrombus 27 Probable Thrombus 18 Not Thrombus 53 Totals 792 7

Figure 5 % Freedom from Device Exchange or death due to thrombus % Freedom at Implant Year n Events 6 mos 12 mos 36 mos 2008 459 18 99% 98% 92% 2009 866 23 99% 99% 95% 2010 1585 88 98% 97% 90% 2011 1845 118 96% 94% ---- 2012 2155 135 94% 93% ---- Totals 6910 382 Event: Device Exchange or death due to thrombus* (censored at death, transplant and recovery) Increase in pump exchange/death due to thrombus or death from 1% to 6% p(overall) <.0001 Months post implant *Thrombus events include probable thrombus events 8

Table 2 Pump Exchanges due to Thrombus: n=337 Exchange Era Elective Emergent Total 2008-2010 9 (24.3%) 28 (75.7%) 37 (100.0%) 2011-2013* 110 (39.3%) 170 (60.7%) 280 (100.0%) Overall p value =.08 * 2013 includes exchanges from 01/01/2013 through 06/30/2013

Figure 4 % Freedom from exchange or death due to thrombus Months % Freedom 6 97% 12 95% 24 92% 48 86% n=6910, events=382 Event: Device exchange or death due to thrombus Hazard Events/Month Months post Implant 10

Figure 6 % Freedom from Device Exchange or death due to thrombus % Freedom by implant year p(overall) <.0001 Event: Device Exchange or death due to thrombus* (censored at death, transplant and recovery) Hazard by implant year Events/Month Months post implant *Thrombus events include probable thrombus events 11

Occurrence and Incidence of Confirmed Pump Thrombosis Stratified According to Implantation Date. Starling RC et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:33-40

Table 4 Risk Factors for Device Exchange or Death due to Thrombus (Time Zero = 1 Month Post Implant) Risk Factor hazard ratio p-value Implant year (later) 1.46 <.0001 Age (younger) 1.25 1 <.0001 White race 1.42.0003 BMI (larger) 1.20 2.01 LVEF above 20% 1.44.003 LDH at 1 month (higher) 3.16 3 <.0001 1 Hazard ratio denotes the increased risk for a 60 year compared to a 70 year old patient 2 Hazard ratio denotes the increased risk for a 10 unit increase in BMI 3 Hazard ratio denotes the increased risk for an increase in LDH from 500 to 1000 units BMI, body mass index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase

Figure 13 By LDH Groups % Freedom from Device Exchange or Death due to Thrombus LDH group n Events Missing 4581 223 0-400 1318 52 401-1000 819 66 > 1000 192 41 Totals 6910 382 Event: Device Exchange due to Thrombus** (censored at death, transplant and recovery) p(overall) <.0001 ** Thrombus events include probable thrombus LDH, lactate dehydrogenase Months post implant 14

Figure 8 1 st device, n=6910, deaths=1604 % Survival Exchange due to Thrombus n=337, deaths=80 Exchange due to Infection/Other n=224, deaths=66 p(overall) <.0001 Event: Death with a device in place (censored at transplant and recovery) Months post implant 15

Table 3 Primary Cause of Death within 3 months After Pump Exchange or After Primary Implant* death due to Thrombus Primary Cause of Death n % n % Circulatory Failure 217 34.7% 5 33.3% Multisystem Organ Failure 114 18.2% 6 40.0% CNS Event 88 14.1% 2 13.3% Infection 51 8.1% 1 6.7% Respiratory Failure 48 7.7% 1 6.7% Device Malfunction 11 1.8% 0 0.0% * Censored at devices exchange CNS, central nervous system

Figure 9 % Freedom from Infection n=6910, events=3206 n=337, events=131 p =.008 Event: Time to first Infection Months post Implant 17

Figure 10 n=6910, events=619 % Freedom from CVA n=337, events=37 p <.0001 Event: Time to first CVA Months post Implant CVA, cerebrovascular accident 18

Figure 12 100 Median Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 40 Main Event n=337: Exchanges due to Thrombus 75 75 75 80 80 80 70 75 72 78 Median 1st Operation (prior to exchange) 2 nd Operation (exchanges due to thrombus) p value.05.72.83.79.61.31.53 --- ---- ---- ----- ----- 1 st Operation (n) 181 119 90 53 36 21 12 5 2 2 2 1 2 nd Operation (n) 23 86 72 29 17 6 4 2 1 1 ---- ---- 19

Figure 14 3 Median INR 1month post implant forward 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2 2 2 2 2 INR 1.5 1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.65 1.6 1st operation Q1-25% Q3-75% 0.5 0 INR, International normalized ratio Post Implant Follow-up by Quarter/Year 20

Limitations Pump Design/Production Intermacs can not give granular data on subtle differences/changes in clinical practice/patient selection overtime that may affect outcome Implantation techniques ie inflow angles Intensity of anticoagulation; compulsive f/u heparin bridging; Pump speed vs AV opening BP management 22

Changes Over Time GI bleeding decrease in anticoagulation goals Elimination of heparin bridging Decrease rpms to allow AV opening Pump Design/Production 2011 changes in outflow graft ; bend relief software changes 2011 Marked ramp up in production 23

Summary 6 fold Increase in Pump Exchange or death due to thrombosis in 2011 to 6% from 1% in 2009 Early Hazard of Pump thrombosis in first 3 months after 2011 not seen prior to 2011 Overall survival not changed (I yr 80%) BUT if you have a pump exchanged for thrombosis your survival is decrease (1 yr 70%) and your chance of stroke or infection is increased 24

Summary Risk factors for early Pump thrombosis is predominantly Pt year (2011) and early LDH rise after implant; other risk factors younger age; white; large BMI; LVEF > 20% 25

Conclusions (personal not intermacs) Most important change post 2011 is not increase rate of thrombosis but new early hazard of thrombosis< 3 months; different than late thrombosis Whatever is happening is happening in the OR or early postop Importance of HMII inflow cannulae ventricular alignment; bridging heparin Early LDH rise not seen prior to 2011 causative or result of early thrombus? Great variations of incidence of thrombosis between sites ( 1% to >20%) Detailed statistical review of different site practices (consortium of high and low incident sites) is needed to determine subtle difference in operative/implantation and pt care practices that may elucidate important risk factors for thrombosis Will allow hypothesis generation to validate in prospective study (PREVENT) Therapeutic window for HMII is more narrow now than prior to 2011 Multifactorial etiology- pump; implantation; pump management (anticoagulation, speed); patient; patient care?anticoagulation goals in high thrombosis incident sites higher now than prior to 2011 Importance of pump flow pass the bearing to dissipate heat rpms > 9000 if possible Continued Thoratec review of manufacturing practices and changes 26 made in pump in 2011