The Texas Heart Institute

About: The Texas Heart Institute is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Heart failure & Transplantation. The organization has 1543 authors who have published 2195 publications receiving 82359 citations. The organization is also known as: The Texas Heart Institute.

Long-Term Use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device for End-Stage Heart Failure

Abstract: Background Implantable left ventricular assist devices have benefited patients with end-stage heart failure as a bridge to cardiac transplantation, but their long-term use for the purpose of enhancing survival and the quality of life has not been evaluated. Methods We randomly assigned 129 patients with end-stage heart failure who were ineligible for cardiac transplantation to receive a left ventricular assist device (68 patients) or optimal medical management (61). All patients had symptoms of New York Heart Association class IV heart failure. Results Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a reduction of 48 percent in the risk of death from any cause in the group that received left ventricular assist devices as compared with the medical-therapy group (relative risk, 0.52; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.78; P=0.001). The rates of survival at one year were 52 percent in the device group and 25 percent in the medical-therapy group (P=0.002), and the rates at two years were 23 percent and 8 percent...

Advanced Heart Failure Treated with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device

Abstract: Background Patients with advanced heart failure have improved survival rates and quality of life when treated with implanted pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices as compared with medical therapy. New continuous-flow devices are smaller and may be more durable than the pulsatile-flow devices. Methods In this randomized trial, we enrolled patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for transplantation, in a 2:1 ratio, to undergo implantation of a continuousflow device (134 patients) or the currently approved pulsatile-flow device (66 patients). The primary composite end point was, at 2 years, survival free from disabling stroke and reoperation to repair or replace the device. Secondary end points included survival, frequency of adverse events, the quality of life, and functional capacity. Results Preoperative characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups, with a median age of 64 years (range, 26 to 81), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%, and nearly 80% of patients receiving intravenous inotropic agents. The primary composite end point was achieved in more patients with continuous-flow devices than with pulsatile-flow devices (62 of 134 [46%] vs. 7 of 66 [11%]; P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.54; P<0.001), and patients with continuous-flow devices had superior actuarial survival rates at 2 years (58% vs. 24%, P = 0.008). Adverse events and device replacements were less frequent in patients with the continuous-flow device. The quality of life and functional capacity improved significantly in both groups. Conclusions Treatment with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced heart failure significantly improved the probability of survival free from stroke and device failure at 2 years as compared with a pulsatile device. Both devices significantly improved the quality of life and functional capacity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121485.)

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Abstract: background Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotidartery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. methods We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year — a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. results The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotidartery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, i7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, i16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). conclusions Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

Abstract: BACKGROUND We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, −0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.)