Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of.

Published bySuzanna Grant Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of."— Presentation transcript:

1 Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of Alabama at Birmingham “Peripartum Cardiomyopathy”

2 PPCMP as Special Population - Women : It has been described in Caucasians, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. However, the incidence in African Americans is considerably higher. : Mean age 23-33. Approximately 60% are older than 30 years. - Race - Age

3 : - 2.5 - 5 cases per each 10 000 live births. - 1 case for every 3186 women delivering a baby. - 1350 women in the US are affected each year. : Recovery of LV function on medical therapy. - At 6 months 60% improve EF and 45% normalize EF. - Transplant rates 5-11%. - 5% of Transplant recipients have PPCMP. PPCMP as Special Population - Incidence -Clinical course

4 PPCMP as Special Population Post-transplant outcomes Rasmusson et al, JHLT 2012;31:180-6  Rejection  Sensitization  Allograft failure  Retransplantation

5 PPCMP as Special Population Unknown pathophysiology

6 PPCMP, clinical course. Time LVEF (%) >55 35 Delivery Symptom onset 1 m 5 m 48-62% MCS HTx LVAD 37-45% LVAD/HTx 6-25% 45 25 15 Explant

7 To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with PPCMP who received MCS. To compare the outcomes of PPCMP patients who received MCS with Non-PPCMP. Objectives Circ Heart Failure 2014;7:300-309

8 INTERMACS Women >14 yo June 23, 2006 and March 31, 2012 Study Population

9 Characteristic PPCMPNon-PPCMP* p 99 (7.9%)1159 (92.1%) Age (y)32.9 ± 9.753.5 ± 13.0 <.0001 Race <.0001 African American55 (55.6%)362 (31.2%) White39 (39.4%)718 (62.0%) Other5 (5.0%)79 (6.8%) Pre-implant comorbidities Diabetes Mellitus21 (21.2%)422 (36.5%) 0.002 Peripheral vascular disease1 (1.0%)131 (11.3%) 0.001 Cancer2 (2.0%)171 (14.9%) 0.0004 Patient characteristics

10 Device Implanted PPCMPNon-PPCMP*p 0.2 LVAD84 (84.8%)1039 (89.6%) Continuous Flow76935 Pulsatile Flow8104 BiVAD14 (14.1%)107 (9.2 %) TAH1 (1.0%)13 (1.1 %) Type of Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support

11 Implantation strategy PPCMPNon-PPCMP*p 0.002 BTT36 (36.4%)388 (33.5 %) BTC49 (49.5%)455 (39.3 %) DT7 (7.1%)275 (23.7 %) BTR4 (4.0%)23 (2.0 %) Other (Rescue)3 (3.0%)18 (1.5 %) Implantation Strategy

12 INTERMACS Profile PPCMPNon-PPCMP*p 0.4 1 Cardiogenic shock21 (21.2%)253 (21.8 %) 2 Progressive decline45 (45.5%)471 (40.6 %) 3 Inotrope dependent24 (24.2%)266 (23.0 %) 4-7 Advanced HF9 (9.1%)169 (14.6 %) Severity of Disease at Implantation (INTERMACS profile)

13 Unadjusted Survival p = 0.01 85% 83% 68% 76% 64% 52%

14 Unadjusted Survival PPCMP vs. ICMP vs NICMP

15 Unadjusted Survival in PPCMP Pulsatile vs. Continuous flow LAVD 88% 85% 78%

16 48 % 25.5 % 20 % 6 % Competing Outcomes in PPCMP

17 Why do PPCMP patients have an improved survival?

18 AcuteSub-acuteChronic p (18, 18.6%)(20,20.6%)(59, 60.8%) Age (y)25.8±6.026.0±6.437.6±8.8<.0001 Characteristics of PPCMP patients according to Heart Failure Duration PPCMP (n=99)

19 Type of Device AcuteSub-acuteChronic p (18, 18.6%)(20,20.6%)(59, 60.8%) 0.02 LVAD12 (66.6%)16 (80%)54 (91.5%) BiVAD6 (33.3%)4 (20%)4 (6.7%) TAH0(0%) 1 (1.6%) Type of Device implanted in PPCMP patients according to Heart Failure Duration PPCMP (n=99)

20 Implant Strategy AcuteSub-acuteChronic p (18, 18.6%)(20,20.6%)(59, 60.8%) 0.2 BTT3 (16.6%)7 (35%)24 (40.6%) BTC11 (61.1%)12 (60%)26 (44%) DT1 (5.5%)0(0%)6 (10.1%) BTR2 (11.1%)1 (5%)1 (1.6%) Other (rescue)1 (5.5%)0(0%)2 (3.3) Implantation strategy in PPCMP patients according to Heart Failure Duration PPCMP (n=99)

21 INTERMACS profile AcuteSub-acuteChronic p (18, 18.6%)(20,20.6%)(59, 60.8%) 0.01 1 Cardiogenic shock 9 (50.0%)5 (25.0%)7 (11.9%) 2 Declining on inotropes 5 (27.8%)11 (55.0%)28 (47.5%) 3 Inotrope dependent 4 (22.2%)4 (20.0%)16 (27.1%) 4-7 Recurrent advanced HF 0(0.0%) 8 (13.6%) Severity of Heart Failure (INTERMACS PROFILE) in PPCMP patients according to Heart Failure Duration PPCMP (n=99)

22 Outcomes at 36 months AcuteSub-acuteChronic p (18, 18.6%)(20,20.6%)(59, 60.8%) 0.08 Explant due to recovery2 (11.1%)2 (10.0%)0 (0.0%) Death2 (11.1%)2 (10.0%)10 (17.0%) Transplanted8 (44.4%)8 (40.0%)17 (28.8%) Alive on support6 (33.3%)8 (40.0%)32 (54.2%) Outcomes at 36 months in PPCMP patients according to Heart Failure Duration PPCMP (n=99)

23 Updated survival data 47% 56%

24 Comparison of survival in PPCMP women receiving Advanced Heart Failure Therapies

25 Survival (%) Years 12 3 4 Heart Transplant Vs. LVAD 79% 67% 57% 47%

26 Survival (%) Years 12 3 4 Heart Transplant Vs. LVAD 79% 67% 57% 47% 84% 81% 78% 75%

27 Survival (%) Years 12 3 4 Heart Transplant Vs. LVAD 79% 67% 57% 47% 84% 81% 78% 75% 83% 73% 68% 62%

28 Survival (%) Years 12 3 4 Heart Transplant Vs. LVAD 79% 67% 57% 47% 84% 81% 78% 75% 83% 73% 68% 62% 57% 70% 81% 87%

29 Conclusions Women with PPCMP represent an special population, who have improved survival after MCS. Heart transplantation is achieved in < 50% of PPCMP patients who received MCS. Explant due to recovery is rare in PPCMP.

30 Thank you

31

32 Despite of over 20% of peripartum cardiomyopathy patients presenting in cardiogenic shock at the time of implantation, the 2 year survival of this cohort was greater than 80% at 2 years.! This improved survival is likely explained by the fewer comorbidities and younger age observed in PPCMP women. Conclusions

33 Unfortunately at 3 years, Heart Transplantation was achieved in less than 50% of peripartum cardiomyopathy women receiving MCS. Despite the seemingly favorable environment for recovery (acute onset, younger age, Non-ischemic etiology) the recovery was disappointingly uncommon (6%). Conclusions

34 Duration of Heart Failure PPCMPNon-PPCMP*p 0.004 Acute (< 1 month)18 (18.2%)112 (9.7 %) Sub-acute (1- 12 months)20 (20.2%)149 (12.9 %) Chronic ( > 12 months)59 (59.6%)859 (74.1 %) Unknown2 (2.0%)39 (3.4 %) Duration of Heart Failure prior to Device Implantation

35 Time post implant (months) Survival (%) PPCMP Non - PPCMP 100 50 75 25 36 30 24 18 12 6 Predicted Survival in the PPPCMP and Non-PPCMP patients based on the prevalence of risk factors in the specific group P < 0.05

36 Time post implant (months) Survival (%) PPCMP Non - PPCMP p = 0.07 100 50 75 25 36 30 24 18 12 6 0 Predicted Survival in the PPCMP and Non-PPCMP patients based on the overall prevalence of risk factors

Download ppt "Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of."

Similar presentations

Perioperative Management of Heart Failure Gamal Fouad S Zaki, MD Professor of Anesthesiology Ain Shams University

Perioperative Management of Heart Failure Gamal Fouad S Zaki, MD Professor of Anesthesiology Ain Shams University
Natale MARRAZZO Francesco SOLIMENE Quando la CRT-P può bastare?

Natale MARRAZZO Francesco SOLIMENE Quando la CRT-P può bastare?
Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?

Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?
Chapter 2: Healthy People 2020 2014 A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.

Chapter 2: Healthy People A NNUAL D ATA R EPORT V OLUME 2: E ND -S TAGE R ENAL D ISEASE.
Hemolysis in Patients Supported with Durable, Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy Jason N. Katz, MD,MHS; Brian C. Jensen, MD; Patricia P.

Hemolysis in Patients Supported with Durable, Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy Jason N. Katz, MD,MHS; Brian C. Jensen, MD; Patricia P.
Monica Colvin-Adams, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Advanced Heart Failure and Transplantation University of Minnesota Compassionate Allowances Outreach.

Monica Colvin-Adams, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Advanced Heart Failure and Transplantation University of Minnesota Compassionate Allowances Outreach.
The long-term outcome after acute renal failure Presented by Ri 顏玎安.

The long-term outcome after acute renal failure Presented by Ri 顏玎安.
Estimating Benefit in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients MedaMACS Progress Report 2014 Garrick C. Stewart, MD Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Estimating Benefit in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients MedaMACS Progress Report 2014 Garrick C. Stewart, MD Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Equipoise Does Not Exist for REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD Heart and Vascular Center Director, Florida Chairman of Cardiology Medical Director of Heart Failure,

Equipoise Does Not Exist for REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD Heart and Vascular Center Director, Florida Chairman of Cardiology Medical Director of Heart Failure,
Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.
Preliminary results from the C-Pulse OPTIONS HF European Multicenter Post-Market Study Holger Hotz, CardioCentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Antonia Schulz,

Preliminary results from the C-Pulse OPTIONS HF European Multicenter Post-Market Study Holger Hotz, CardioCentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Antonia Schulz,
The Heart and Heart Failure in the Year 2013 Jonathan D. Rich, MD Associate Director, Mechanical Circulatory Support Program Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute.

The Heart and Heart Failure in the Year 2013 Jonathan D. Rich, MD Associate Director, Mechanical Circulatory Support Program Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute.
Left Ventricular Assist Devices: The What and the Who Lance E. Sullenberger MD FACC FACP Capital Cardiology Associates.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: The What and the Who Lance E. Sullenberger MD FACC FACP Capital Cardiology Associates.
What have we learned? What is next? Panel B: Functional Capacity, Quality of Life and Outcomes H.Functional Capacity I.Neurocognitive Assessment J.Quality.

What have we learned? What is next? Panel B: Functional Capacity, Quality of Life and Outcomes H.Functional Capacity I.Neurocognitive Assessment J.Quality.
Predicting Patients at Risk for Poor Global Outcomes after DT- MCS Therapy Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, MHA Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute/UMKC May.

Predicting Patients at Risk for Poor Global Outcomes after DT- MCS Therapy Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, MHA Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute/UMKC May.
Health Disparities of Minority Women and Diabetes Kathleen M. Rayman, Ph.D., RN Appalachian Center for Translational Research in Disparities Faculty Development.

Health Disparities of Minority Women and Diabetes Kathleen M. Rayman, Ph.D., RN Appalachian Center for Translational Research in Disparities Faculty Development.
Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status.

Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status.
PREDICTING AKI IS MORE CHALLENGING AS AGE PROGRESSES Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, MSc Associate Professor, School of Pharmacy.

PREDICTING AKI IS MORE CHALLENGING AS AGE PROGRESSES Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, MSc Associate Professor, School of Pharmacy.
Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.
Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Assessment.

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Assessment.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google