Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Equipoise Does Not Exist for REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD Heart and Vascular Center Director, Florida Chairman of Cardiology Medical Director of Heart Failure, Cardiac Transplantation, and Mechanical Circulatory Support Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston, FL Put Another Way: Is this the right time, with the right device, with the right adverse event profile to move forward with REVIVE IT in a less ill population of patients? Relevant Financial Relationship Disclosure Statement Equipoise with REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD I will not discuss off label use and/or investigational use of drugs/devices The following relevant financial relationships exist related to my role in this session: Thoratec: Medical Advisory Board and Honoraria Actuarial Survival vs REMATCH 100 90 Percent Survival 80 68% 70 CF LVAD 60 55% 50 52% 58% LVAD REMATCH: 23% 40 30 20 25% 10 PF LVAD 24% OMM REMATCH 0 0 6 Rose E et al. NEJM 2001; 345:1435-43 Slaughter M et al. NEJM 2009; 361: 1-11. 12 Months 18 8% 24 WISL INTERMACS Categories WISL INTERMACS Categories Patient Demographics Survival to D/C Based on INTERMACS 93.5 % survival 100 80 95.8 Group 3 vs Group 1: p = 0.02 70.4 Group 3 vs Group 2: p = 0.59 60 Group 2 vs Group 1: p < 0.009 40 20 0 Group 1 (n=27) Group 2 (n=48) Group 3 (n=24) Group 1: INTERMACS 1: crash and burn Group 2: INTERMACS 2 and 3: hospitalized and inotrope-dependent Group 3: INTERMACS 4 – 7: poor functional capacity Boyle A, et al. JHLT 2011; 30:402-407. Lengths of Stay Based on INTERMACS 60 Days 50 44 Group 3 vs Group 1: p < 0.001 41 40 Group 3 vs Group 2: p < 0.001 30 17 20 Group 2 vs Group 1: p = 0.62 10 0 Group 1 (n=27) Group 2 (n=48) Group 3 (n=24) Group 1: INTERMACS 1: crash and burn Group 2: INTERMACS 2 and 3: hospitalized and inotrope-dependent Group 3: INTERMACS 4 – 7: poor functional capacity Boyle A, et al. JHLT 2011; 30:402-407. Actuarial Survival Overall Survival on MCS 100 80 60 40 Group 3 vs 1: p = 0.011 Group 3 vs 2: p = 0.065 Group 2 vs 1: p = 0.18 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Months post-LVAD Group 1 Boyle A, et al. JHLT 2011; 30:402-407. Group 2 Group 3 Heartware BTT Secondary Outcome: Survival 100 HVAD % Survival 90 Control 80 70 60 0 Days Post Implant Treatment Control 30 98.6% 96.6% 90 95.6% 93.6% 180 93.9% 90.2% 360 90.6% 85.7% 60 120 180 p = .39 Event: Death (censored at transplant or recovery) ITT Population 240 Days Post Implant Presented at AHA 2010 by K. Aaronson et al. 300 360 Have We Truly Shifted to a Less Sick Population? The “LVAD Triad” for Successful Widespread Adoption Adverse Events with Continuous Flow VADs Kirklin J et al. J Heart Lung Transpl 2013; 32: 141 – 156. Heartware Adverse Event Profile Presented by Maltais S et al at ISHLT 2014. Overall Occurrence of Confirmed Pump Thrombosis at 3 Months after HM II Implantation Starling RC et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:33-40. Occurrence and Incidence of Confirmed Pump Thrombosis Stratified According to Implantation Date. Starling RC et al. N Engl J Med 2014;370:33-40. LVAD Pump Thrombosis ROADMAP: Thoratec Initiated Post-marketing Study REVIVE-IT: Thoratec Supported NHLBI Trial Title Acronym Objective Status Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness Of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients ROADMAP Compare the effectiveness of HM II versus optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory non-inotrope dependent NYHA Class IIIB / IV patients Enrolled 200/200 pts (@ 37 sites) Randomized Evaluation of LVAD Intervention Before Inotropic Therapy REVIVE-IT Compare the effectiveness of HeartMate II versus OMM in NYHA Class III patients with illness not severe enough to qualify for transplant or permanent LVAD therapy based on current guidelines Enrolled 0/100 pts (randomized study) 0/2500 pts (screening registry) 0/14 sites ROADMAP and REVIVE-IT Complementary Studies Exploring HeartMate II in Earlier-Stage HF NYHA Class III INTERMACS Profiles Class IIIB 7 6 Class IV (Ambulatory) 4 5 Class IV (On Inotropes) 3 2 1 FDA Approval: Class IIIB / IV CMS Coverage: Class IV Currently Not Approved Limited Adoption Growing Acceptance And How Representative are These Patients Anyways? • Anticipating 2500 screening failures in the registry to find 100 eligible patients for the study • How meaningful is that to my clinical practice? Who Are the Patients Who Would Consent to Such a Study? • Have to agree to be randomized to a VAD • Therefore will be a selected population of patients who are already interested in a VAD • Being randomized to OMM arm is not a benign event for these patients: remember patients assigned to the XVE arm of the HM II DT trial? Conclusions • We should be moving to a less sick population which is the ambulatory Class IV patient • Data will be needed to convince MD’s to refer for MCS in IM 4 and 5 patients let alone IM 6 and 7 • The devices currently commercially available do not have a favorable adverse event profile that would justify moving to a Class III population • We will not get a DO OVER. If this is done poorly MCS will forever be banished to the inotrope dependent patient. We better do it right the first time.