Left ventricular assist devices versus medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: An analysis of INTERMACS Profiles 4 and 5 to 7 from the ROADMAP study.

Published

Journal Article

BACKGROUND: The ROADMAP study showed survival with improved functional status was better with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy compared with optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory, non-inotrope-dependent (INTERMACS [IM] Profile 4 to 7) patients. To study more balanced cohorts and better define which patients may benefit from implantation of an LVAD, we re-evaluated the patients enrolled in ROADMAP when stratified by INTERMACS profile (Profile 4 and Profiles 5 to 7). METHODS: The primary end-point (survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-minute walk distance ≥75 meters at 1 year), actuarial survival, adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated. RESULTS: For INTERMACS Profile 4 (IM4), more LVAD patients met the primary end-point compared with OMM patients (40% vs 15%; odds ratio = 3.9 [1.2 to 12.7], p = 0.024), but there was no statistically significant difference for INTERMACS Profiles IM 5 to 7 (IM5-7). Event-free survival on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD than for OMM patients in both IM4 (67% vs 28%; p < 0.001) and IM5-7 (76% vs 49%; p = 0.025) profile groups. Composite end-points of survival on original therapy with improved HRQoL or depression were better with LVAD than OMM in IM4, but not IM5-7. AEs trended higher in LVAD compared with OMM patients in both profile groups. Rehospitalization rates for LVAD vs OMM were similar between treatment arms in IM4 (82% vs 86%; p = 0.780), but were higher for LVAD in IM5-7 (93% vs 71%; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: LVAD patients in IM4, but not IM5-7, are more likely to meet the primary end-point and have improvements in HRQoL and depression compared with OMM, even with AEs generally being more frequent. LVAD therapy with current technology may be beneficial in select IM4 patients, but can be deferred for most IM5-7 patients, who should be followed closely due to the high frequency of treatment failures.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Shah, KB; Starling, RC; Rogers, JG; Horstmanshof, DA; Long, JW; Kasirajan, V; Stehlik, J; Chuang, J; Farrar, DJ; Estep, JD; ROADMAP Investigators,

Published Date

  • June 2018

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 37 / 6

Start / End Page

  • 706 - 714

PubMed ID

  • 29275844

Pubmed Central ID

  • 29275844

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1557-3117

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.healun.2017.12.003

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States