Clinical InvestigationCongestive Heart FailurePercutaneous left ventricular partitioning in patients with chronic heart failure and a prior anterior myocardial infarction: Results of the PercutAneous Ventricular RestorAtion in Chronic Heart failUre PaTiEn

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of a novel percutaneous left ventricular partitioning device (VPD) in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and a prior anterior myocardial infarction.BackgroundAnterior myocardial infarction is frequently followed by left ventricular remodeling, HF, and increased long-term morbidity and mortality.MethodsThirty-nine patients were enrolled in a multinational, nonrandomized, longitudinal investigation. The primary end point was an assessment of safety, defined as the successful delivery and deployment of the VPD and absence of device-related major adverse cardiac events over 6 months. Secondary (exploratory) efficacy end points included changes in hemodynamics and functional status and were assessed serially throughout the study.ResultsVentricular partitioning device placement was not attempted in 5 (13%) of 39 subjects. The device was safely and successfully implanted in 31 (91%) of the remaining 34 patients or 79% of all enrolled patients. The 6-month rate of device-related major adverse cardiac event occurred in 5 (13%) of 39 enrolled subjects and 5 (15%) of 34 treated subjects, with 1 additional event occurring between 6 and 12 months. For patients discharged with the device to 12 months (n = 28), New York Heart Association class (2.5 ± 0.6 to 1.3 ± 0.6, P < .001) and quality-of-life scores (38.6 ± 6.1 to 28.4 ± 4.4, P < .002) improved significantly; however, the 6-minute hall walk distance (358.5 ± 20.4 m to 374.7 ± 25.6 m, P nonsignificant) only trended toward improvement.ConclusionsThe left VPD appears to be relatively safe and potentially effective in the treatment for patients with HF and a prior anterior myocardial infarction. However, these limited results suggest the need for further evaluation in a larger randomized controlled trial.