Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy for patients with endstage heart failure
Health technology assessment
|Updated
We have assessed left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy.
Key message
The Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in the Health Care recommended in 2008 that left ventricular assist device (LVAD) should be offered to patients only for a limited period of time, for example while awaiting heart transplantation. This recommendation may be reconsidered. We have assessed LVAD as destination therapy. In 2008, there was one randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing first-generation LVAD with optimal medical treatment. A literature search performed in June 2013 provided an RCT from 2009 that compared second-generation LVAD with first-generation LVAD, a few recent prospective case series, registry data and two relevant international cost-effectiveness analyses.
Our main conclusions are:
- Compared with optimal medical therapy LVAD can provide extended life time and improved quality of life for selected patients with end-stage heart failure.
- The magnitude of the clinical effect is uncertain.
- There are no studies comparing LVAD with heart transplantation. The most common complications associated with LVAD are bleeding, infections, need for pump replacement, stroke and right ventricular heart failure. These complications are the major cause of death the first two years following pump insertion.
- The costs of LVAD have been reduced since 2008, but they are still high. International cost-effectiveness analyses are associated with uncertainty.
- A Norwegian cost-effectiveness analysis has not been performed. Both to offer and not to offer LVAD as destination therapy is ethically challenging.
Summary
Background
Cardiac transplantation is currently the preferred long-term treatment of eligible patients with end-stage advanced heart failure. The availability of donor hearts is limited and not all patients may tolerate cardiac transplantation. Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), that fully or partly support the left ventricle, are suggested as an alternative therapy for patients with end-stage advanced heart failure. In our report from 2008, we concluded that LVAD may prolong life and improve quality of life, yet the number of complications and costs were very high. Newer types of LVADs were at the time under investigation in clinical trials. The National Council for Priority Setting in the Health Care recommended in 2008 that LVAD should only be offered to patients for a limited period, for example while awaiting cardiac transplantation (bridge to transplant). Questions to reconsider the recommendations have been raised. We were commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) on LVAD as destination therapy.
Methodology
We have restricted the assessment to LVAD as destination therapy for adults with advanced heart failure. Questions regarding clinical effectiveness, safety and costs were assessed based on a systematic literature search performed in June 2013 looking for HTA-reports, systematic reviews, studies with relevant control groups (including randomised controlled trials (RCTs)), prospectively collected registry data that report drop-outs and follow-up time, as well as any study reporting Norwegian experiences. Questions concerning disease, technology and ethical challenges were assessed based on selected sources and input from Norwegian experts. We have not conducted cost-effectiveness analysis or comprehensive organisational impact analysis.
Results
Disease and description of technology
Advanced heart failure
Heart failure is a condition where the heart is unable to pump enough blood to cover the needs of the body. The most common cause of heart failure is narrowing or blockage of the coronary arteries. Patients with advanced heart failure have significantly reduced quality of life and shortened life span. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification provides a simple way of classifying the extent of heart failure, of which NYHA class IV is the most severe. The number of patients in Norway in NYHA class IV is probably between 500 to 1000. Most of these receive medical treatment including lifestyle measures, drugs, pacemakers, defibrillators (ICD) and synchronization therapy (CRT). Cardiac transplantation is only relevant for a limited number of eligible patients below 70 years through a nationwide function at Oslo University Hospital (OUH). The transplantation rate in Norway is approximately 35 hearts per year. With the current criteria for transplantation the real need is approximately 50 transplantations per year. Medical treatment of patients with end-stage heart failure, i.e. patients who do not respond to medical treatment and who are not eligible for transplantation, is primarily to reduce symptoms (i.e. palliative treatment).
LVAD
Long-term LVAD is used as a bridge to transplantation while awaiting a suitable heart or as destination therapy, e.g. for permanent use. First-generation LVADs were large pulsatile pumps, while the second- and third-generation are smaller and provide a continuous blood flow. Destination therapy with LVAD is considered both as life prolonging and palliative care. Eligible patients for LVAD: The number of patients eligible for LVAD is uncertain.
The recommendations from clinical experts at OUH are to include patients that are considered for transplantation, but do not meet the criteria for transplantation although below 70 years of age. According to the experts, this concerns about 40 patients per year. In addition, a small number of carefully selected elderly patients may also be eligible. It is very likely that technological advancement and changes in indication for use may increase the number of patients eligible for LVAD.
Current use
Currently, LVAD as destination therapy is not offered in Norway. Long-term treatment with LVAD as a bridge to transplantation is offered only at OUH as part of the nationwide function within transplantation. The number of patients treated with LVAD at OUH in 2013 is estimated to be between eight and ten. The use of LVAD in different European countries is highly variable. As of October 2013, patients in England were not offered LVAD as destination therapy. In year 2012, 100 cardiac transplants were performed and 80 patients received LVAD as bridge to transplantation. In Germany, the number of annual cardiac transplantations is about 350, and more than 1000 patients received LVAD in 2012. In Denmark and Sweden, LVAD is given as destination therapy to a small number of carefully selected patients. In the United States, LVAD is given both as destination therapy and as bridge to transplantation. With approximately 2000 annual cardiac transplantations, the use of LVAD as destination therapy increased from 32 of a total of 860 (3.7%) LVAD treatments in 2009 to 724 out of a total of 1765 (41%) LVAD treatments in 2011.Clinical effectiveness and safety. We identified one RCT from 2001 comparing LVAD with optimal medical treatment and one RCT from 2009 comparing second-generation LVAD with first-generation LVAD.
In addition, we included prospective case series and data from registry studies. We found no new studies comparing LVAD with optimal medical treatment. Furthermore, we found no studies that directly compare second- or third-generation LVAD with optimal medical treatment, that directly compare LVAD with cardiac transplantation or studies comparing third-generation LVAD with second-generation LVAD and reported long-term outcomes (one year or more).
Survival
The RCT from 2001 reported 48% risk reduction of death with LVAD compared to optimal medical therapy.
Our confidence in the estimate on this study alone is medium (GRADE quality medium⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝). Based on the RCT, a best possible estimate for survival with medical treatment is 28% after one year and 13% after two years. These estimates should probably be adjusted upwards considering experiences from current practice. The RCT from 2009 reported a 46% risk reduction of death with second-generation LVAD compared to first-generation LVAD. Our confidence in the effect estimates for survival based on the study alone is medium (GRADE quality medium ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ ⊝). A prospective continuation of the RCT from 2009 and registry data, provide a best possible estimate for survival with the second-generation LVAD to be about 70 % after one year and 60% after two years. There are considerable uncertainties associated with survival beyond two years. Since there are no comparative studies, it still remains uncertain whether third-generation LVAD can give similar results. All indirect comparisons based on these estimates are afflicted with high degree of uncertainty. Patient volume, learning curves, patient selection, optimal organization and follow-up are probably all factors promoting a positive outcome. However, based on the included studies, we cannot identify the most important factor. Functional outcomes and quality of life.
The results from the RCT of 2009, indicate that LVAD improves quality of life, function as measured by change from NYHA class IV to NYHA class I or II, the 6-minute walk test and gives better results on various scoring systems for quality of life. The improvement persisted in the patients who after two years still had the original pump inserted and were available for measurement.
Safety
The most common complications with the second-generation LVADs include bleeding, infection, need for pump replacement, stroke and right ventricular heart failure. The complications are serious, and the major cause of death the first two years after pump insertion. More than 90% of the patients in both arms of the RCT from 2009 experienced complications leading to hospitalization during the first two years. The number of complications per patient and patient year is lower for second-generation LVADs compared to first-generation LVADs. In addition, the number of complications is lower in recent studies compared to older studies. Most complications occur during the first time period following insertion of LVAD, yet the risk of serious complications persist beyond two years. A lower survival rate of patients with LVAD compared to transplantation may be anticipated based on the persistent high risk of complications.
Costs
We found that both a Dutch and an American cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the costs associated with LVAD as destination therapy is beyond the limits of what is commonly perceived as cost-effective in these countries. In both studies survival was based on indirect comparisons and the projection of the results from the RCTs is described above. The Dutch analysis estimated an effect of 3.23 gained life years and 2.83 quality-adjusted life years (QUALY) with LVAD as destination therapy compared to optimal medical treatment. There are considerable uncertainties associated with these calculations related to survival data, quality of life data and transferability to the Norwegian situation. Both American and Norwegian data suggest that the hospital-costs for LVAD are reduced during the last years. A Norwegian analysis of the hospital-costs related to implantation of LVAD as bridge to transplantation, indicated that the average cost per patient is around 2 million Norwegian kroner. The analysis includes the expenditures for the stages before, during and up to one year after implantation as well as the cost for the pump itself. The results cannot be directly transferred to use of LVAD as destination therapy.
Ethics
There are ethical challenges related to both offering and not offering LVAD. Stake holders include patients, relatives, health professionals, policy makers and industry. The goal of the treatment is prolonged life and improved quality of life. The patient group has a poor prognosis. The treatment is difficult and requires that the patients both understand and are able to maintain necessary self-care. In addition, the treatment is expensive and involves significant risk of complications. The treatment raises ethical questions related to overall priorities in health care, acceptable costs, to what extent the Norwegian health care system should contribute to medical innovation, criteria for patient selection, information to relatives and patients and the challenges linked to termination of the treatment. It is important not to expose seriously ill patients to unnecessary risks or suffering. The line against experimental treatment may be difficult to draw.
Organisation
An introduction of LVAD as destination therapy would have to be gradual over time. In addition to the changes that will be necessary within the institution or institutions that offer LVAD, there will be a need for training and information both regionally and locally in the specialist and primary health care services. Extended use of LVAD leads to establishment of new treatment pathways involving both the specialist and primary health care services.
Conclusions
Compared to optimal medical therapy LVAD can provide extended lifetime and improved quality of life for selected patients with end-stage heart failure. The magnitude of the clinical effect is uncertain. There are no studies comparing LVAD with transplantation. The most common complications associated with LVAD are bleeding, infections, need for pump replacement, stroke and right ventricular heart failure. These complications are the major cause of death the first two years following pump insertion. The costs of LVAD have been reduced since 2008, but they are still high. International cost-effectiveness analyses are associated with uncertainty. A Norwegian cost-effectiveness analysis has not been performed. Both to offer and not to offer LVAD as destination therapy is ethically challenging.
Need for further research and impact assessments
Both the effect and the costs are uncertain. Results from ongoing studies comparing third-generation LVAD with second-generation LVAD will probably be available in 2014. There may be a need for a Norwegian cost-effectiveness analysis. It is necessary to clarify if more trustworthy knowledge about the costs and effects is essential in order to make a decision.