Current Cardiology Reports

, 15:394 | Cite as

INTERMACS and MedaMACS: How Will They Guide Future Therapy?

Congestive Heart Failure (J Lindenfeld, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

The INTERMACS registry has played a central role in the evolving field of device therapy for advanced heart failure (HF). This nationwide, prospective registry of approved assist devices has defined the boundaries of mechanical support, tracked the evolution from pulsatile to continuous flow, developed new profiles for advanced HF, and standardized adverse event definitions. INTERMACS has guided current therapy and in the future will do so aided by new insights from MedaMACS, a parallel registry of medically-managed ambulatory patients with advanced HF. Together INTERMACS and MedaMACS will leverage the power of observation research to guide patient-centered decisions about mechanical circulatory support.

Keywords

Heart failure Heart assist devices Cardiomyopathy Registries INTERMACS MedaMACS Therapy 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Stewart GC, Givertz MM. Mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure: patients and technology in evolution. Circulation. 2012;125:1304–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peura JL, Colvin-Adams M, Francis GS, et al. Recommendations for the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support: Device Strategies and Patient Selection: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126:2648–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC. Mechanical circulatory support: registering a therapy in evolution. Circ Heart Fail. 2008;1:200–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holman WL. Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS): what have we learned and what will we learn? Circulation. 2012;126:1401–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Aaronson KD, Slaughter MS, Miller LW, et al. Use of an intrapericardial, continuous-flow, centrifugal pump in patients awaiting heart transplantation. Circulation. 2012;125:3191–200. Clinical trial of a novel, intrapericardial VAD (HeartWare HVAD) showed that the device is non-inferior to contemporaneously implanted bridging LVADs in the INTERMACS registry.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Stevenson LW, et al. INTERMACS database for durable devices for circulatory support: first annual report. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008;27:1065–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. Second INTERMACS annual report: more than 1,000 primary left ventricular assist device implants. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. Third INTERMACS Annual Report: the evolution of destination therapy in the United States. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:115–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. The Fourth INTERMACS Annual Report: 4,000 implants and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:117–26. The latest registry report from INTERMACS documents expanded LVAD use as destination therapy and outlines current risk factors for pump implantation.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cowger J, Kittleson M, Patel C, et al. End stage heart failure: are we missing patients who may benefit from left ventricular assist device support? Circulation. 2011;124:A8490.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kittleson M, Stewart GC, Cowger J, et al. Need for triage in advanced heart failure. Circulation. 2012;126, A14709.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart GC, Kittleson M, Cowger J, et al. High event rates in medically managed advanced heart failure patients followed at VAD centers. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:S11–S2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. New Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Coverage Determination (NCD) Manual 100–03 20.9, Version 5, "Artificial Hearts and Related Devices", Implemented 1/6/2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Miller MA, Ulisney K, Baldwin JT. INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support): a new paradigm for translating registry data into clinical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:738–40. Cogent outline of the novel way INTERMACS leverages observational research to shape clinical practice patterns.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    www.uab.edu/intermacs (Accessed January 2013).
  17. 17.
    Kirklin JK, Mehra MR. The dawn of the ISHLT Mechanical Assisted Circulatory Support (IMACS) Registry: fulfilling our mission. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:115–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naftel DC, Kirklin JK, Myers SL, et al. Can a registery match the data quality of a clinical trial? Lessons learned from INTERMACS. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:S261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:535–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alba AC, Rao V, Ivanov J, Ross HJ, Delgado DH. Usefulness of the INTERMACS scale to predict outcomes after mechanical assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:827–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Boyle AJ, Ascheim DD, Russo MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;30:402–7. Shows that INTERMACS profiling before pump implant can confer information about downstream risks, highlighting the relevance of this convenient new shorthand for describing advanced heart failure.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pagani FD, Naftel DC, Aaronson KD, et al. Changing characteristics of patients receiving mechanically assist circulatory support in INTERMACS. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:S27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frazier OH, Rose EA, McCarthy P, et al. Improved mortality and rehabilitation of transplant candidates treated with a long-term implantable left ventricular assist system. Ann Sur. 1995;222:327–36. discussion 36–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, et al. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. New Engl J Med. 2007;357:885–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stevenson LW, Hunt SA. A bridge far enough? Circulation. 2012;125:3069–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zierer A, Melby SJ, Voeller RK, et al. Late-onset driveline infections: the Achilles' heel of prolonged left ventricular assist device support. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2007;84:515–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holman WL, Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, et al. Infection after implantation of pulsatile mechanical circulatory support devices. J Thorac Cardiov Sur. 2010;139(1632–6):e2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldstein DJ, Naftel D, Holman W, et al. Continuous-flow devices and percutaneous site infections: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1151–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morgan JA, Weinberg AD, Hollingsworth KW, Flannery MR, Oz MC, Naka Y. Effect of gender on bridging to transplantation and posttransplantation survival in patients with left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiov Sur. 2004;127:1193–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hernandez AF, Grab JD, Gammie JS, et al. A decade of short-term outcomes in post cardiac surgery ventricular assist device implantation: data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' National Cardiac Database. Circulation. 2007;116:606–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hsich EM, Naftel DC, Myers SL, et al. Should women receive left ventricular assist device support?: findings from INTERMACS. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:234–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart GC, Stevenson LW. Keeping left ventricular assist device acceleration on track. Circulation. 2011;123:1559–68. discussion 68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Teuteberg JJ, Stewart GC, Jessup M, et al. Implant strategies for continuous flow LVAD therapy in INTERMACS–Impacts on outcome and variability over time. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:S10–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Acker MA, Pagani FD, Stough WG, et al. Statement regarding the pre and post market assessment of durable, implantable ventricular assist devices in the United States. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1241–52. Position statement that discusses, amongst other things, the role for registries in pump approval and potential streamlining of device indications to either bridging therapy or treatment of heart failure.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, et al. Long-term mechanical circulatory support (destination therapy): on track to compete with heart transplantation? J Thorac Cardiov Sur. 2012;144:584–603. discussion 597–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mehra MR, Kobashigawa J, Starling R, et al. Listing criteria for heart transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for the care of cardiac transplant candidates–2006. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:1024–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fitzpatrick 3rd JR, Frederick JR, Hsu VM, et al. Risk score derived from pre-operative data analysis predicts the need for biventricular mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008;27:1286–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palardy M, Nohria A, Rivero J, et al. Right ventricular dysfunction during intensive pharmacologic unloading persists after mechanical unloading. J Card Fail. 2010;16:218–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matthews JC, Koelling TM, Pagani FD, Aaronson KD. The right ventricular failure risk score a pre-operative tool for assessing the risk of right ventricular failure in left ventricular assist device candidates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:2163–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drakos SG, Janicki L, Horne BD, et al. Risk factors predictive of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:1030–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Adamson RM, Stahovich M, Chillcott S, et al. Clinical Strategies and Outcomes in Advanced Heart Failure Patients Older Than 70 Years of Age Receiving the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device A Community Hospital Experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2487–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Flint KM, Matlock DD, Lindenfeld J, Allen LA. Frailty and the selection of patients for destination therapy left ventricular assist device. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:286–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol. 2004;59:255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Morin JF, et al. Gait speed as an incremental predictor of mortality and major morbidity in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1668–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. Jama. 2011;305:50–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Green P, Woglom AE, Genereux P, et al. The impact of frailty status on survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience. Jacc. 2012;5:974–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stewart GC, Brooks K, Pratibhu PP, et al. Thresholds of physical activity and life expectancy for patients considering destination ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:863–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Grady KL, Warner Stevenson L, Pagani FD, et al. Beyond survival: recommendations from INTERMACS for assessing function and quality of life with mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1158–64. Highlights the importance of routinely assessing exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in developing metrics of device benefit beyond survival alone.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, et al. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:1928–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Baldwin JT, Mann DL. NHLBI's program for VAD therapy for moderately advanced heart failure: the REVIVE-IT pilot trial. J Card Fail. 2010;16:855–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01452802 (Accessed January 2013).
  52. 52.
    Stewart GC, Kittleson M, Cowger J, et al. Who wants an LVAD for ambulatory heart failure? J Card Fail. 2011;17:S37–S8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham and Women’s HospitalCenter for Advanced Heart DiseaseBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations