|
|
| General |
| Study Status |
Completed |
Application Number / Requirement Number |
P160054 S008/ PAS002 |
| Date Original Protocol Accepted |
01/18/2019
|
| Date Current Protocol Accepted |
 
|
| Study Name |
Continued f/u of Continued Access Cohort
|
| Device Name |
HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System
|
| Clinical Trial Number(s) |
NCT02224755
|
| General Study Protocol Parameters |
| Study Design |
Prospective Cohort Study
|
| Data Source |
New Data Collection
|
| Comparison Group |
No Control
|
| Analysis Type |
Descriptive
|
| Study Population |
Adult: At least 22 yrs
|
| Detailed Study Protocol Parameters |
| Study Objectives |
To characterize the clinical outcomes through 2 years post implantation by continuing to follow the premarket continued access protocol (CAP) patients.
|
| Study Population |
Subjects (HeartMate 3 only) who were enrolled in the premarket CAP cohort.
|
| Sample Size |
All living subjects
|
| Key Study Endpoints |
The composite endpoint of survival to transplant or recovery, or on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support free of debilitating stroke (Modified Rankin Score > 3) or reoperation to replace the pump; mortality; bleeding; major infection; hemolysis; device thrombosis; neurological dysfunction; and any other serious adverse events; as well as New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD).
|
| Follow-up Visits and Length of Follow-up |
2 years
|
| Interim or Final Data Summary |
| Actual Number of Patients Enrolled |
1685
|
| Actual Number of Sites Enrolled |
68
|
| Patient Follow-up Rate |
98.3%
|
| Final Safety Findings |
The rates of adverse events at 2 years were largely similar between the CAP and Pivotal Cohorts.
|
| Final Effect Findings |
The survival rate, functional status and quality of life improvements in the CAP Cohort were also comparable to those observed in the Pivotal Cohort at 2 years.
|
| Study Strengths & Weaknesses |
The study’s main strength was its size in patient cohort, which was more than 3 times greater than the treatment arm of the pivotal cohort. The study’s main weakness was that it was a non-randomized study with inherent biases.
|
| Recommendations for Labeling Changes |
Yes
|