Sustainable Improved Clinical Outcomes Using CardioMEMSTMHF System Remote Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Treating Heart Failure Patients

Abstract

Background CardioMEMSTMpulmonary artery pressure sensor had shown decreased rates of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and quality of life compared to standard of care alone in the CHAMPION trial. Objective With our growing HF population, requiring CardioMEMSTM implant in our center based on the FDA approved indication, we aimed to look at the differences in HF admissions, total hospital admissions, clinic visits in all patients. We also aimed to evaluate if there was a difference in these outcomes between first 53 and second 53 patients with increasing operator and HF team experience. Time to death post-implant was also assessed. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 106 sequential patients who received the implant. We collected data on number of HF admissions, total hospital admissions, and clinic visits 1-year prior and 1-year post-implant. Time to death (in years) were calculated post-implant in all patients. We labeled first 53 cohort as patients who received implant before Aug 2016 and second 53 cohort who received implant after Aug 2016. Results Our study showed a significant reduction in HF admissions, total admissions and clinic visits per year in all patients who received the implant ( Table 1 ). However, further analysis did not show a significant difference in these outcomes in the first 53 patients cohort versus second 53 patients cohort despite the HF population requiring the implant are growing ( Table 2 ). The second 53 patients showed significant reduction in each individual outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in post-implant death comparing these two groups. Overall there was a significant mean (%) reduction in each clinical outcome in all patients and comparing first 53 patients versus second 53 patients. Conclusion A significant reduction in HF admissions, total admissions and clinic visits per year in all patients who received the implant, especially in the second 53 patients. However, considering post-implant results, there were no significant differences in outcomes compared to the patients who received the implant before Aug 2016 versus after Aug 2016 and our results were sustainable.