INTERMACS profiles and outcomes of ambulatory advanced heart failure patients: A report from the REVIVAL Registry

• Published in: The Journal of heart and lung transplantation Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 16 - 26
• Main Authors: Kittleson, Michelle M., Shah, Palak, Lala, Anuradha, McLean, Rhondalyn C., Pamboukian, Salpy, Horstmanshof, Douglas A., Thibodeau, Jennifer, Shah, Keyur, Teuteberg, Jeffrey, Gilotra, Nisha A., Taddei-Peters, Wendy C., Cascino, Thomas M., Richards, Blair, Khalatbari, Shokoufeh, Jeffries, Neal, Stevenson, Lynne W., Mann, Douglas, Aaronson, Keith D., Stewart, Garrick C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-01-2020
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; ambulatory heart failure; death; Female; Heart Failure - therapy; heart transplantation; Heart-Assist Devices; Hospitalization - trends; Humans; INTERMACS Profiles; LVAD; Male; Middle Aged; Outpatients; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Registries; Risk Assessment - methods; Young Adult; death; ambulatory heart failure; INTERMACS Profiles; heart transplantation; LVAD
• ISSN: 1053-2498; 1557-3117
• DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2019.08.017

Ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) are often considered for advanced therapies, including durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles are a commonly used descriptor of disease severity in patients receiving MCS devices, but their role in defining the prognosis of ambulatory patients is less well established, especially for Profiles 6 and 7.
Registry Evaluation of Vital Information on Ventricular Assist Devices in Ambulatory Life is a prospective observational study of 400 outpatients from 21 MCS and cardiac transplant centers. Eligible patients had New York Heart Association Class II to IV symptoms despite optimal medical and electrical therapies with a recent HF hospitalization, heart transplant listing, or evidence of high neurohormonal activation.
The cohort included 33 INTERMACS Profile 4 (8%), 83 Profile 5 (21%), 155 Profile 6 (39%), and 129 Profile 7 (32%). Across INTERMACS profiles, there were no differences in age, gender, ejection fraction, blood pressure, or use of guideline-directed medical therapy. A lower INTERMACS profile was associated with more hospitalizations, greater frailty, and more impaired functional capacity and quality of life. The composite end point of death, durable MCS, or urgent transplant at 12 months occurred in 39%, 27%, 24%, and 14% subjects with INTERMACS Profiles 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively (p = 0.004).
Among ambulatory patients with advanced HF, a lower INTERMACS profile was associated with a greater burden of HF across multiple dimensions and a higher composite risk of durable MCS, urgent transplant, or death. These profiles may assist in risk assessment and triaging ambulatory patients to advanced therapies.