Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us

What Is The Best TherapyFor Class IV Heart Failure?

Beta blockers or LVADs?

85% 18 mo40% 18 mo

Triage Guided By INTERMACS Profiles

• Importance of comparing a fruit to a fruit

• Shifting away from Profile 1 over time

• Device before Transplant vs

Direct Transplant without Device

vs Device Only

• Evolution of INTERMACS Profiles

• INTERMACS patients compared to MedaMACS– Line up by disease severity

– Line up by intent• Transplant eligibility

• Likelihood of RV failure?

• Patient preferences?

REMATCH “Class IV” 19 unstable on > 2 inotropic agents 8 patients on 2 agents, couldn’t wean first agent 3 patients unsuccessful switch of one agent for another 34 unsuccessful wean due to hypotension or increased

dyspnea

27 met VO2 < 12 criterion on inotropic therapy and did not attempt wean

38 patients oral therapy only met PkVO2 criteria

% Pts 6 Mo SurvProportion

Crash and burn

46%0.71

Sliding fast 40%0.74

Stable on inotropes

8%0.88

Resting symptoms home on oral therapy

6%

0.77

All VADS 2006-2007Pagani at al ISHLT2008

INTERMACS Profiles and VAD Survival

Months post implant

% S

urvi

val

Level 1: n=1391Deaths=381

Level 2: n=3601Deaths=942

Level 3: n=2591Deaths=544

Levels 4-7, n=1789Deaths=405

P < .0001

Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery)

Figure 10

7

Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372

We do need a mechanicaloption before transplantationFor INTERMACS 1 and 2

AVERAGE WAIT TIME FOR URGENT PATIENTS = 5 days!

PROFILE-LEVEL Official Shorthand % Profiles

In Bridge

INTERMACS

LEVEL 1

“Crash and burn” 18%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 2

“Sliding fast” on ino 42%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 3

Stable but Ino-Dependent

Can be hosp or home

23%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 4

Resting symptoms on oral therapy at home.

12%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 5

“Housebound”,

Comfortable at rest, symptoms with minimum activity ADL

3%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 6

“Walking wounded”-ADL possible but meaningful activity limited

2%

INTERMACS

LEVEL 7

Advanced Class III

Profile 4Oral Rx home

Profile 5

Profile 6

Profile 7

How many surgeriesdo Profile 3-4 ptsreally need?

Tx after VADIs better

Tx alonebetter

Patients need supportto survive and thrivefor transplant .

When and whatintervention isfor housebound orwalking wounded?

Dead 12%

Alive (device in place) 50%Transplanted 37%

Recovery 1%

10Figure 6

Decreasing eligibility for listed pts after VAD

Triage Guided By INTERMACS Profiles

• Importance of comparing a fruit to a fruit

• Shifting away from Profile 1 over time

• Device before Transplant vs

Direct Transplant without Device

vs Device Only

• Evolution of INTERMACS Profiles

• MedaMACS compared to INTERMACS patients– Line up by disease severity

– Line up by intent• Transplant eligibility

• Likelihood of RV failure?

• Patient preferences?

Intermacs Profile Levels EvolveCardiac Filling Pressures Over Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2006-102011-13

Central Venous PressureNo change in

Cardiac Index:Every level Both eras

Mean 2.1

PA Systolic PressureEvery level Both erasMean about 50 mm

Slight change in PCWBoth eras:

Level 1= 26, Level 2= 25Level 3-4 = 24 previous

= 23, 22 mm now

Intermacs and MedaMACS Cardiac Filling Pressures Over Time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Level 1 Level 3 MedaMACS

2006-102011-13

Central Venous Pressure

Intermacs and MedaMACSSystolic Blood Pressure at Implant

90

95

100

105

110

115

Level 1 Level 3 MedaMACS

2006-102011-13

Intermacs and MedaMACSSerum Creatinine Levels

11.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9

2

Level

1

Level

2

Level

3

Level

4

Med

aMACS

2006-102011-13

Intermacs and MedaMACS Natriuretic Peptide Levels

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Level 1 Level 3 MedaMACS

2006-102011-13

BNP Levels (Similar for NT Pro BNP

Intermacs and MedaMACSAlbumin Levels

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Level 1 Level 3 MedaMACS

2006-102011-13

Triage Guided By INTERMACS Profiles

• Importance of comparing a fruit to a fruit

• Evolution of INTERMACS Profiles

• Device before Transplant vs

Direct Transplant without Device

vs Device Only

• MedaMACS compared to INTERMACS patients– Line up by disease severity

– Line up by intent• Transplant eligibility

• Likelihood of RV failure?

• Patient preferences?

What Is Likelihoodthat MedaMACS Patient

Would Need BiVAD if VAD?

Uncertain

Definite orprobable BiVADDefinite LVADOnlyProbably LeftOnly

What Is Likelihoodthat MedaMACS Patient

Would Be Transplant-Eligible?

Uncertain

Moderately orHighly UnlikelyHighly likely

ModeratelyLikely

Profiles for ComparisonLimits of Adjustment

EQ

-5D

VA

S

Pre-Implant 3 month 6 month

Months Post Implant

Best

Worst

EQ5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) across time (± SE)

Figure 14

22

Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD implants: 2008 – 2013, n= 9372

12 month 18 month 24 month

Implant Eras

P values < .0001 .05 .07 .12 .48 .65

?

MedaMACS

More or less benefit?

?

INTERMACS and MedaMACS Are Not Two Arms of a Study

That requires

REMATCH

REVIVE IT

Triage Guided By INTERMACS Profiles

• Importance of comparing a fruit to a fruit• Evolution of INTERMACS Profiles• Triage for transplant and devices• MedaMACS compared to INTERMACS patients

– Line up by disease severity

– Line up by intent• Transplant eligibility

• Likelihood of RV failure?

• Patient preferences?

• We cannot ever say what would have happened with different therapy: – Our answers will be in the form of

“These patients had these outcomes”