Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – Dec 2004, n= Deaths * censored at transplant Percent Survival Months after Device Implant Deaths / Month Event:
Advertisements

ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – Dec 2004, n= Deaths * censored at transplant Percent Survival Months after Device Implant Deaths / Month Event:
Right Heart Failure in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients
Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?
Hemolysis in Patients Supported with Durable, Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy Jason N. Katz, MD,MHS; Brian C. Jensen, MD; Patricia P.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients ISHLT 2012 J Heart Lung Transplant Oct; 31(10):
A Canadian View on Effective Use of VADS Value Based Care and the Role of INTERMACS in our Evolving Health Care Environment A Canadian View on Effective.
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.
What have we learned? What is next? Panel B: Functional Capacity, Quality of Life and Outcomes H.Functional Capacity I.Neurocognitive Assessment J.Quality.
Joseph G. Rogers, MD Professor of Medicine Duke University
A Validated Practical Risk Score to Predict the Need for RVAD after Continuous-flow LVAD SK Singh MD MSc, DK Pujara MBBS, J Anand MD, WE Cohn MD, OH.
Biventricular Failure – Total Artificial Heart Francisco A. Arabía, MD Director, CHSI Center for Surgical Device Management Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute.
Keith Aaronson, Mark Slaughter, Edwin McGee, William Cotts, Michael Acker, Mariell Jessup, Igor Gregoric, Pranav Loyalka, Valluvan Jeevanandam, Allen Anderson,
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.
Periportal Fibrosis Without Cirrhosis Does Not Affect Outcomes Following Continuous Flow Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Jonathon E. Sargent, BS,
INTERMACS Annual Meeting
Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status.
Disclosures. Consultant Thoratec, HeartWare Research Support Thoratec (2012) No off label use/indications will be discussed.
Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Marissa A. Miller, DVM, MPH National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute.
Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Assessment.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients JHLT Oct; 32(10):
HeartWare HVAD: Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes Mark S. Slaughter, MD Professor and Chair Department Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery University of.
MCS in Special Populations: The Use of Mechanical Support in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease 9 th Annual Meeting May 15, 2015 Christina VanderPluym,MD.
RDB Jaquiss Duke University
Survival following VAD complications: implications for transplant priority. Todd Dardas, MD, MS May 16, 2015.
Long-term Benefits of Surgical Pulmonary Embolectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolus on Right Ventricular Function Brent Keeling MD 1, Bradley G. Leshnower.
Introduction Device infection remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients supported by mechanical assist devices. The infection.
Revascularizaton of Ischemic DCM Percutaneous Revascularization and Hemodynamic Support Matthew R. Wolff, M.D. University of Wisconsin Disclosures: Cordis.
Development of a novel predictive model for mortality post continuous flow LVAD implant using Bayesian Networks (BN) N. A. Loghmanpour 1, M. K. Kanwar.
INTERMACS: June 2006 – December 2012: CMS Report Adults: n=7849 All primary implants as of 12/31/2012 n= 7928 Pediatric patients: n=79 (patients < 19 yrs.
Risk Factors for Adverse Outcome after HeartMate II Jennifer Cowger, MD, MS St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana Advanced Heart Failure, Transplant, & Mechanical.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients 2014 JHLT Oct; 33(10):
“Rise of the Machines” Todd D. Edwards MD FACC FACP FASNC.
MCSRN Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network
Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of.
LUNG TRANSPLANTATION Adult Recipients 2014 JHLT Oct; 33(10):
Analysis of Pump Thrombosis in the Intermacs Database Michael Acker William Measey Professor of Surgery Chief of Division of Cardiovascular Surgery Director.
Session III: Linking Intermacs to the World: The Power of Collaboration Intermacs and the ISHLT Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support.
1 Data Quality Report Quality Assurance Report Live Data Download Site Datasets (SAS) Research Datasets Customized Cohort Reports Outcome Analytics Patient.
Michael S Kiernan, MD, SM Assistant Professor, Tufts University Medical Director Ventricular Assist Device Program, Tufts Medical Center.
Date of download: 6/3/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of.
Date of download: 6/24/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: The Year in Cardiovascular Surgery J Am Coll Cardiol.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Results of the Destination Therapy Post-Food and.
Identifying patients for advanced heart failure therapy by screening patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:
Total Artificial Heart (TAH): Survival Outcomes, Risk Factors,
Tomislav Mihaljevic, MD, Edward R
James K. Kirklin, MD, Francis D. Pagani, MD, PhD, Robert L
INTERMACS 10th Annual Meeting March , 2016 Quality of Life
Ventricular function recovery on LVAD For idiopathic or ischemic CM
Assist Devices for the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock
The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Twenty- seventh official adult heart transplant report—2010  Josef Stehlik,
Pre-operative mortality risk assessment in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: Application of the HeartMate II risk score 
Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients  James K. Kirklin, MD, David C. Naftel,
More Than Survival: Futility
Emma J. Birks, FRCP, PhD, Robert S
Assessment of an extracorporeal life support to LVAD bridge to heart transplant strategy  Francis D Pagani, MD, PhD, Keith D Aaronson, MD, David B Dyke,
Hemodynamic and physiologic changes during support with an implantable left ventricular assist device  Patrick M. McCarthy, MD (by invitation), Robert.
Outcomes of contemporary mechanical circulatory support device configurations in patients with severe biventricular failure  Allison P. Levin, BA, MSc,
Long-term mechanical circulatory support (destination therapy): On track to compete with heart transplantation?  James K. Kirklin, MD, David C. Naftel,
Five-Year Outcomes after Randomization to Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Final Results of The PARTNER 1 Trial Michael J. Mack, MD.
Durability of left ventricular assist devices: Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 2006 to 2011  William L.
William L. Holman, MD, James K. Kirklin, MD, David C
Mechanical Circulatory Support Pathways That Maximize Post-Heart Transplant Survival  Tara Karamlou, MD, MS, Jill Gelow, MD, Brian S. Diggs, PhD, Frederick.
IMACS First Annual Report
Francisco A. Arabía, MD, MBA, Carmelo A
Optimal timing of cardiac transplantation after ventricular assist device implantation  James S Gammie, MD, Leah B Edwards, PhD, Bartley P Griffith, MD,
Optimal timing for heart transplantation in patients bridged with left ventricular assist devices: Is timing of the essence?  Chase R. Brown, MD, Fabliha.
Daisuke Yoshioka, MD, Hiroo Takayama, MD, Arthur R. Garan, MD, Veli K
Presentation transcript:

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD

James K Kirklin I have no financial disclosures (I am the Principle Investigator for the NIH contract for INTERMACS)

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 3 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery What do we have so far?

Months post implant % Survival Deaths/months Hazard (early + late) n=9359, Deaths=2280 Months% Survival 195% 1280% 2469% 36 59% 4847% Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9359 n at risk: Event: Death (censored at transplantation or recovery)

Months post implant % Survival Deaths/months Hazard (early + late) n=9359, Deaths=2280 Months% Survival 195% 1280% 2469% 36 59% 4847% Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9359 n at risk: Event: Death (censored at transplantation or recovery)

Months post implant % Survival LVAD: Continuous n=9112, Deaths=2154 BiVAD: Continuous n=260, Deaths=118 LVAD: Pulsatile n=612, Deaths=230 BiVAD: Pulsatile n=319, Deaths=123 overall p <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Figure 10 Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=10542 TAH: Pulsatile n=239, Deaths=59 % Survival at Pump1 yr post implant CF LVAD 81% CF Bi-VAD 57% PF LVAD 65% PF Bi-VAD 45% TAH 59% 6

Months post implant % Survival LVAD: Continuous n=9112, Deaths=2154 BiVAD: Continuous n=260, Deaths=118 LVAD: Pulsatile n=612, Deaths=230 BiVAD: Pulsatile n=319, Deaths=123 overall p <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=10542 TAH: Pulsatile n=239, Deaths=59 % Survival at Pump1 yr post implant CF LVAD 81% CF Bi-VAD 57% PF LVAD 65% PF Bi-VAD 45% TAH 59% 7

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher)1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=9372 8

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older) 1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher)1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=9372 9

Months post implant % Survival Age < 50 yrs n=2403, deaths=446 Age yrs n=4184 Deaths= 942 Age yrs n=1484, deaths=433 Overall P <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Age > 70 yrs, n=1301 deaths=451 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=

INTERMACS 11 Age Category AGE GROUP (yr) IMPLANT DATE PERIOD < n%n%n% %300.8 %80.3 % % % % % % % % % % %180.8 % Unspecified % TOTAL % % % June 2006 – December 2012

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level <.0001 INTERMACS Level <.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher)1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=

Months post implant % Survival Level 1: n=1391 Deaths=381 Level 2: n=3601 Deaths=942 Level 3: n=2591 Deaths=544 Levels 4-7, n=1789 Deaths=405 P <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=

Patient Profile at time of implant Implant Date Era TOTAL N%N%N% 1 Critical Cardiogenic Shock % % % 2 Progressive Decline % % % 3 Stable but Inotrope Dependent % % % 4 Resting Symptoms % % % 5 Exertion Intolerant842.9%1923.0%2762.9% 6 Exertion Limited491.7%791.4%1291.4% 7 Advanced NYHA Class %431.0%731.0% TOTAL % % % CF-LVAD/BiVAD Implants: January 2008 – December 2013, n=9372 Continuous Flow Devices 14

Patient Profile at time of implant Implant Date Era TOTAL N%N%N% 1 Critical Cardiogenic Shock % % % 2 Progressive Decline % % % 3 Stable but Inotrope Dependent % % % 4 Resting Symptoms % % % 5 Exertion Intolerant842.9%1923.0%2762.9% 6 Exertion Limited491.7%791.4%1291.4% 7 Advanced NYHA Class %431.0%731.0% TOTAL % % % CF-LVAD/BiVAD Implants: January 2008 – December 2013, n=9372 Continuous Flow Devices 15

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher)1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Table 6 Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=9372 LVAD, left ventricular assist device; BiVAD, biventricular assist device; DT, destination therapy; BTT, bridge to transplant; BMI, body mass index; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; RVAD, right ventricular assist device. 16

Months post implant % Survival DT, n= 3373 Deaths= 1027 BTT (including BTC), n= 5886 Deaths= 1218 p <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 BTR, n= 46 Deaths= 4 Rescue Therapy, n= 27 Deaths= 11 Other, n= 40 Deaths= 12 17

CF-LVAD/BiVAD Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=9372 Device Strategy at time of implant Implant Date Era TOTAL N%N%N% BTT Listed % % % BTT Likely % % % BTT Moderate % % % BTT Unlikely 822.8%218¾%3003.2% Destination Therapy % % % BTR 151.0%311.0%461.0% Rescue Therapy 100.3%170.3%270.3% Other 140.5%260.4%400.4% TOTAL % % % Continuous Flow Devices 18

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis 2.37<.0001 BUN (higher) 1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher)1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Table 6 Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=9372 LVAD, left ventricular assist device; BiVAD, biventricular assist device; DT, destination therapy; BTT, bridge to transplant; BMI, body mass index; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; RVAD, right ventricular assist device. 19

Months post implant % Survival Low n=8237, deaths=1862 Moderate (creat > 2 or BUN > 60) n=993, deaths=339 Severe (dialysis) n=142, deaths=71 Overall P <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Figure 14 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 Survival by Renal Risk Factors 20

Months post implant % Survival Low n=8237, deaths=1862 Moderate (creat > 2 or BUN > 60) n=993, deaths=339 Severe (dialysis) n=142, deaths=71 Overall P <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Figure 14 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 Survival by Renal Risk Factors 21

Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs & BIVADs, DT and BTT, n=4917 Implants: June 2006 – March 2012: Creatinine 22 Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs & BIVADs, DT and BTT, n=4917 Implants: June 2006 – March 2012: Time course of Creatinine according to pre-implant Renal Dysfunction Creatinine (mg/dL) Follow-up Time Period Severe (n=282) Moderate (n=1475) Mild/None (n=3160) * p <.05 ** p <.001 Paired comparisons to pre-implant ** *

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation 2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher) 1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=

Months post implant % Survival Low n=6596, deaths=1481 Moderate (ascites or RAP >= 18 or Bilirubin >= 2) n=2516, deaths=690 Severe (BiVAD) n=260, deaths=120 Overall P <.0001 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 Survival by Right Heart Failure Risk Factors 24

Early hazardLate hazard Risk Factors for Death Hazard Ratiop-valueHazard Ratiop-value Demographics Age (older)1.36<.0001 Female BMI (higher)1.13<.0001 Clinical Status History of Stroke INTERMACS Level 11.69<.0001 INTERMACS Level 21.44<.0001 Destination Therapy Non-Cardiac Systems Albumin (lower) Creatinine (higher) Dialysis2.37<.0001 BUN (higher)1.06< Right Heart Dysfunction Right Atrial Pressure (higher) RVAD in same operation 2.45<.0001 Bilirubin (higher) 1.21<.0001 Ascites Surgical Complexities History of cardiac surgery1.43<.0001 Concommitant Cardiac Surgery Adult Primary Continuous Flow LVADs and BiVADs Implants: June 2006 – December 2013, n=

Tricuspid Repair Following VAD Implantation in INTERMACS Howard Song, MD, PhD Co-authors James Mudd, MD; Jill Gelow, MD, MPH; Christopher Chien, MD; Fred Tibayan, MD; Kathryn Hollifield, BSN, RN; David Naftel, PhD; and James Kirklin, MD "This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. HHSN C" 26 04/04/2014

INTERMACS: June 2006 – March 2013: TVR Adult Destination Therapy CF primary LVAD/BiVAD, n= Phase of Hazard Early Constant Risk Factors for DeathHazard ratio p-valueHazardratiop-value Age (years) 1.58 <.0001 BMI (higher) Not Married Hx of CABG BUN (higher) Total Bilirubin (higher) Creatinine (higher) Ventilator INTERMACS Level INTERMACS Level Bi-VAD 5.05 <.0001 Tricuspid Regurgitation 1.35*.009 * Represents the increased risk for 1 level increase in TV Regurgitation

So, is the real risk factor the procedure or the condition? 28

Months post implant Event: Death with a device in place (censored at transplant and recovery % Survival Concomitant Tricuspid Surgery n deaths None Repair Overall p =.83 INTERMACS: June 2006 – March 2013: TVR Adult Destination Therapy CF primary LVAD/BiVAD, n= Tricuspid Regurg Echo at pre-implant: Moderate/Severe, n=989

No TV Procedure, n=757 TV Repair, n= 215 % Moderate/Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation INTERMACS: June 2006 – March 2013: TVR Moderate/Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation over time by TV Repair vs. No TVR Procedure, n=989 n=757 n=136 n=215 n=50 n=88 n=75 n=46 n=31 n=12 n=21 n=8 n=17 n=9 n=3 Note: N’s represent the number of Moderate/Severe Tricuspid Regurg

Months post implant % Freedom from Exchange Era 2: N=6311, events=522 Era 1: n=2800, Events=273 Continuous Flow LVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9111 Event: Time to 1 st Exchange p < Pump Thrombosis

Figure 20 Months post implant % Survival Operation 1: N=8565, deaths=2039 Operation 2: n=734, Deaths=242 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 Event: Death (censored at transplant and recovery) p <.0001 Operation 3: n=73, Deaths=29 32

Education War Era Cardiac Surgery These stratified actuarial depictions are very useful, but… They have limited value for predicting outcomes for an individual patient. The stratified actuarial method forces conditions like..”assuming he/she does not receive a heart transplant”, or..”assuming there is not explant for recovery” Ideally, INTERMACS could provide software or website applications that allow the physician to provide the patient with the most useful predictions of the chances of various outcomes occurring to him/her. 33

Education War Era Cardiac Surgery Predictive modeling for outcome events based on initial implant strategy The goal is useful predictions of the likelihood (probability) of a specific patient (with his/her individual risk profile) experiencing a given outcome depending on the initial implant strategy. The basic methodology utilizes multivariable hazard function analyses on the competing outcomes platform. The basic strategies are BTT, BTC, DT, and BTR. The outcome event of interest are Transplant, Alive on device, Explant for recovery, and death. David Naftel will review our initial steps in this process. 34

Months after Implant Proportion of Patients Dead 12% Alive (device in place) 50% Transplanted 37% Recovery 1% BTT: Listed CFLVAD implants , n=1309 Outcome % at 1 year 35 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 Figure 6

Months after Implant Proportion of Patients Dead 15% Alive (device in place) 64% Transplanted 20% Recovery 1% Outcome % at 1 year 36 Continuous Flow LVAD/BiVAD Implants: 2008 – 2013, n=9372 BTC CFLVAD implants , n=2205 Figure 7