D Marshall Brinkley1, Li Wang2, Chang Yu2, E Wilson Grandin3, Michael S Kiernan4. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: marshall.brinkley@vumc.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Cardiovascular Division, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) improves survival and reduces adverse cardiac events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the benefit is not well-defined following left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS: We analyzed the ISHLT IMACS registry for adults with a primary, continuous-flow LVAD from January 2013 to September 2017 who were alive at postoperative month 3 without a major adverse event, and categorized patients according to treatment an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI/ARB) or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). Propensity score matching was performed separately for ACEI/ARB vs none (n = 4,118 each) and MRA vs none (n = 3,892 each). RESULTS: Of 11,494 patients included, 50% were treated with ACEI/ARB and 38% with MRA. Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly better for patients receiving ACEI/ARB (p < 0.001) but not MRA (p = 0.31). In Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusted for known predictors of mortality following LVAD, ACEI/ARB use (hazard ratio 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.71-0.93], p < 0.0001) but not MRA use (hazard ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.21], p = 0.69) was independently associated with lower mortality. Among patients treated with an ACEI/ARB, there was a significantly lower unadjusted risk of cardiovascular death (p < 0.001), risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.01), and creatinine level (p < 0.001). MRA therapy was associated with lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.01) but higher risk of hemolysis (p < 0.01). Potential limitations include residual confounding and therapy crossover. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a benefit for ACEI/ARB therapy in patients with heart failure after LVAD implantation.
BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) improves survival and reduces adverse cardiac events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the benefit is not well-defined following left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS: We analyzed the ISHLT IMACS registry for adults with a primary, continuous-flow LVAD from January 2013 to September 2017 who were alive at postoperative month 3 without a major adverse event, and categorized patients according to treatment an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI/ARB) or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). Propensity score matching was performed separately for ACEI/ARB vs none (n = 4,118 each) and MRA vs none (n = 3,892 each). RESULTS: Of 11,494 patients included, 50% were treated with ACEI/ARB and 38% with MRA. Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly better for patients receiving ACEI/ARB (p < 0.001) but not MRA (p = 0.31). In Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusted for known predictors of mortality following LVAD, ACEI/ARB use (hazard ratio 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.71-0.93], p < 0.0001) but not MRA use (hazard ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.21], p = 0.69) was independently associated with lower mortality. Among patients treated with an ACEI/ARB, there was a significantly lower unadjusted risk of cardiovascular death (p < 0.001), risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.01), and creatinine level (p < 0.001). MRA therapy was associated with lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.01) but higher risk of hemolysis (p < 0.01). Potential limitations include residual confounding and therapy crossover. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a benefit for ACEI/ARB therapy in patients with heart failure after LVAD implantation.
Authors: Stefan Klotz; Robert F Foronjy; Marc L Dickstein; Anguo Gu; Ingrid M Garrelds; A H Jan Danser; Mehmet C Oz; Jeanine D'Armiento; Daniel Burkhoff Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-07-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jacqueline Baras Shreibati; Shubin Sheng; Gregg C Fonarow; Adam D DeVore; Clyde W Yancy; Deepak L Bhatt; Phillip Schulte; Eric D Peterson; Adrian Hernandez; Paul A Heidenreich Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Brian A Houston; Andrea L C Schneider; Joban Vaishnav; David M Cromwell; P Elliott Miller; Kamil F Faridi; Ashish Shah; Chris Sciortino; Glenn Whitman; Ryan J Tedford; Gerin R Stevens; Daniel P Judge; Stuart D Russell; Rosanne Rouf Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Jennifer L Wilkinson-Berka; Genevieve Tan; Kassie Jaworski; Jacqueline Harbig; Antonia G Miller Journal: Circ Res Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Stavros G Drakos; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Craig H Selzman; Edward M Gilbert; Rami Alharethi; Bruce B Reid; Abdulfattah Saidi; Nikolaos A Diakos; Sandi Stoker; Erin S Davis; Matthew Movsesian; Dean Y Li; Josef Stehlik; Abdallah G Kfoury Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Avishay Grupper; Yanjun M Zhao; Pavol Sajgalik; Lyle D Joyce; Soon J Park; Naveen L Pereira; John M Stulak; John C Burnett; Brooks S Edwards; Richard C Daly; Sudhir S Kushwaha; John A Schirger Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Nicholas Y Tan; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Stephanie R Schilz; Shannon M Dunlay Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 5.501