CAM 20224

Cardiac Hemodynamic Monitoring for the Management of Heart Failure in the Outpatient Setting

Category:Durable Medical Equipment   Last Reviewed:May 2019
Department(s):Medical Affairs   Next Review:May 2020
Original Date:May 2011    

Description:
A variety of outpatient cardiac hemodynamic monitoring devices are intended to improve quality of life and reduce morbidity for patients with heart failure by decreasing episodes of acute decompensation. Monitors can identify physiologic changes that precede clinical symptoms and thus allow preventive intervention. These devices operate through various mechanisms, including implantable pressure sensors, thoracic bioimpedance measurement, inert gas rebreathing, and estimation of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure by arterial pressure during the Valsalva maneuver.

For individuals who have heart failure in outpatient settings who receive hemodynamic monitoring with an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor device, the evidence includes randomized controlled trials. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. One implantable pressure monitor, the CardioMEMS device, has U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. The pivotal CHAMPION randomized controlled trial reported a statistically significant decrease in heart failure-related hospitalizations in patients implanted with CardioMEMS device compared with usual care. However, trial results were potentially biased in favor of the treatment group due to use of additional nurse communication to enhance protocol compliance with the device. The manufacturer conducted multiple analyses to address potential bias from the nurse interventions. Results were reviewed favorably by the Food and Drug Administration. While these analyses demonstrated the consistency of benefit from the CardioMEMS device, all such analyses have methodologic limitations. Early safety data have been suggestive of a higher rate of procedural complications, particularly related to pulmonary artery injury. Given that the intervention is invasive and intended to be used for a highly prevalent condition, in the light of limited safety data, lack of demonstrable mortality benefit, and pending questions related to its benefit in reducing hospitalizations, the net benefit remains uncertain. Many of these concerns may be clarified by an ongoing postmarketing study that proposes to enroll 1,200 patients (at least 35% women) is reported. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

For individuals who have heart failure in outpatient settings who receive hemodynamic monitoring by thoracic impedance, with inert gas rebreathing, or of arterial pressure during the Valsalva maneuver, the evidence includes uncontrolled prospective studies and case series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. There is a lack of randomized controlled trial evidence evaluating whether the use of these technologies improves health outcomes over standard active management of heart failure patient. The case series have reported physiologic measurement-related outcomes and/or associations between monitoring information and heart failure exacerbations, but do not provide definitive evidence on device efficacy. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Background  
CHRONIC HEART FAILURE
Patients with chronic heart failure are at risk of developing acute decompensated heart failure, often requiring hospital admission. Patients with a history of acute decompensation have the additional risk of future episodes of decompensation and death. Reasons for the transition from a stable, chronic state to an acute, decompensated state include disease progression, as well as acute events such as coronary ischemia and dysrhythmias. While precipitating factors are frequently not identified, the most common preventable cause is noncompliance with medication and dietary regimens.1 

Management
Strategies for reducing decompensation, and thus the need for hospitalization, are aimed at early identification of patients at risk for imminent decompensation. Programs for early identification of heart failure are characterized by frequent contact with patients to review signs and symptoms with a health care provider, education, and medication adjustments as appropriate. These encounters may occur face-to-face in the office or at home, or via cellular or computed technology.2 

Precise measurement of cardiac hemodynamics is often employed in the intensive care setting to carefully manage fluid status in acutely decompensated heart failure. Transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, and Doppler ultrasound are noninvasive methods for monitoring cardiac output on an intermittent basis for the more stable patient but are not addressed herein. A variety of biomarkers and radiologic techniques may be used for dyspnea when the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure is uncertain.

The criterion standard for hemodynamic monitoring is pulmonary artery catheters and central venous pressure catheters. However, they are invasive, inaccurate, and inconsistent in predicting fluid responsiveness. Several studies have demonstrated that catheters fail to improve outcomes in critically ill patients and may be associated with harm. To overcome these limitations, multiple techniques and devices have been developed that use complex imaging technology and computer algorithms to estimate fluid responsiveness, volume status, cardiac output and tissue perfusion. Many are intended for use in outpatient settings but can be used in the emergency department, intensive care unit, and operating room. Four methods are reviewed here: implantable pressure monitoring devices, thoracic bioimpedance, inert gas rebreathing, and arterial waveform during the Valsalva maneuver. Use of last three is not widespread because of several limitations including use proprietary technology making it difficult to confirm their validity and lack of large randomized controlled trials to evaluate treatment decisions guided by these hemodynamic monitors.

Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure Estimation
Pulmonary Artery Pressure Measurement to Estimate Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure
Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) can be approximated by direct pressure measurement of an implantable sensor in the pulmonary artery wall or right ventricular outflow tract. The sensor is implanted via right heart catheterization and transmits pressure readings wirelessly to external monitors. One device, the CardioMEMS Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System, has approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the ambulatory management of heart failure patient. The CardioMEMS device is implanted using a heart catheter system fed through the femoral vein and generally requires patients have an overnight hospital admission for observation after implantation.

Thoracic Bioimpedance
Bioimpedance is defined as the electrical resistance of current flow through tissue. For example, when small electrical signals are transmitted through the thorax, the current travels along the blood-filled aorta, which is the most conductive area. Changes in bioimpedance, measured during each beat of the heart, are inversely related to pulsatile changes in volume and velocity of blood in the aorta. Cardiac output is the product of stroke volume by heart rate and, thus, can be calculated from bioimpedance. Cardiac output is generally reduced in patients with systolic heart failure. Acute decompensation is characterized by worsening of cardiac output from the patient’s baseline status. The technique is alternatively known as impedance cardiography.

Inert Gas Rebreathing
Inert gas rebreathing is based on the observation that the absorption and disappearance of a blood-soluble gas are proportional to cardiac blood flow. The patient is asked to breathe and rebreathe from a bag filled with oxygen mixed with a fixed proportion of 2 inert gases, typically nitrous oxide and sulfur hexafluoride. The nitrous oxide is soluble in blood and is therefore absorbed during the blood’s passage through the lungs at a rate proportional to the blood flow. The sulfur hexafluoride is insoluble in blood and therefore stays in the gas phase and is used to determine the lung volume from which the soluble gas is removed. These gases and carbon dioxide are measured continuously and simultaneously at the mouthpiece.

Arterial Pressure During Valsalva Maneuver to Estimate LVEDP
LVEDP is elevated with acute decompensated heart failure. While direct catheter measurement of LVEDP is possible for patients undergoing cardiac catheterization for diagnostic or therapeutic reasons, its invasive nature precludes outpatient use. Noninvasive measurements of LVEDP have been developed based on the observation that arterial pressure during the strain phase of the Valsalva maneuver may directly reflect the LVEDP. Arterial pressure responses during repeated Valsalva maneuvers can be recorded and analyzed to produce values that correlate to the LVEDP. 

Regulatory Status 
Noninvasive LVEDP Measurement Devices
In 2004, the VeriCor® (CVP Diagnostics), a noninvasive LVEDP measurement device, was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. FDA determined that this device was substantially equivalent to existing devices for the following indication:

“The VeriCor is indicated for use in estimating non-invasively, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). This estimate, when used along with clinical signs and symptoms and other patient test results, including weights on a daily basis, can aid the clinician in the selection of further diagnostic tests in the process of reaching a diagnosis and formulating a therapeutic plan when abnormalities of intravascular volume are suspected. The device has been clinically validated in males only. Use of the device in females has not been investigated.”

FDA product code: DXN.

Thoracic Bioimpedance Devices
Multiple thoracic impedance measurement devices that do not require invasive placement have been cleared for marketing by the FDA through the 510(k) process. The FDA determined that this device was substantially equivalent to existing devices used for peripheral blood flow monitoring. Table 1 presents an inexhaustive list of representative devices (FDA product code: DSB).

Table 1. Noninvasive Thoracic Impedance Plethysmography Devices

Device

Manufacturer

Clearance Date

BioZ® Thoracic Impedance Plethysmograph

SonoSite

2009

Zoe® Fluid Status Monitor

Noninvasive Medical Technologies

2004

Cheetah Starling SV

Cheetah Medical

2008

PhysioFlow® Signal Morphology-based Impedance Cardiography (SM-ICG™)

Vasocom, now NeuMeDx

2008

ReDSTM Wearable System

Sensible Medical Innovations

2015

Also, several manufacturers market thoracic impedance measurement devices integrated into implantable cardiac pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillator devices, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Thoracic bioimpedance devices integrated into implantable cardiac devices are addressed in evidence review 2.02.10.

Inert Gas Rebreathing Devices
In 2006, the Innocor® (Innovision), an inert gas rebreathing device, was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. FDA determined that this device was substantially equivalent to existing inert gas rebreathing devices for use in computing blood flow. FDA product code: BZG.

Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Sensor Devices
In 2014, the CardioMEMS™ Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System (CardioMEMS, now St. Jude Medical) was cleared for marketing by FDA through the premarket approval process. This device consists of an implantable pulmonary artery (PA) sensor, which is implanted in the distal PA, a transvenous delivery system, and an electronic sensor that processes signals from the implantable PA sensor and transmits PA pressure measurements to a secure database.3, The device originally underwent FDA review in 2011, at which point FDA found no reasonable assurance that the monitoring system would be effective, particularly in certain subpopulations, although FDA agreed this monitoring system was safe for use in the indicated patient population.4,

Several other devices that monitor cardiac output by measuring pressure changes in the PA or right ventricular outflow tract have been investigated in the research setting but have not received FDA approval. They include the Chronicle® implantable continuous hemodynamic monitoring device (Medtronic), which includes a sensor implanted in the right ventricular outflow tract, and the ImPressure® device (Remon Medical Technologies), which includes a sensor implanted in the PA.

Note: This evidence review only addresses the use of these technologies in ambulatory care and outpatient settings.

Related Policies
20210 Biventricular Pacemakers (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) for the Treatment of Heart Failure

701111 Wireless Pressure Sensors in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Policy:
In the ambulatory care and outpatient setting, cardiac hemodynamic monitoring for the management of heart failure utilizing thoracic bioimpedance, inert gas rebreathing, arterial pressure/Valsalva and implantable direct pressure monitoring of the pulmonary artery are considered INVESTIGATIONAL.

Policy Guidelines
This policy refers only to the use of stand-alone cardiac output measurement devices designed for use in ambulatory care and outpatient settings. The use of cardiac hemodynamic monitors or intrathoracic fluid monitors that are integrated into other implantable cardiac devices, including implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and cardiac pacing devices, is addressed in evidence review 20210.

Coding
There is a specific CPT code for bioimpedance:

93701 Bioimpedance-derived physiologic cardiovascular analysis.

Inert gas rebreathing measurement and left ventricular end diastolic pressure should be reported using the unlisted code:

93799 Unlisted cardiovascular service or procedure.

There is no specific CPT code for implantable direct pressure monitoring of the pulmonary artery. The unlisted code 93799 would be used

Benefit Application
Blue Card®/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all FDA-approved devices, drugs or biologics may not be considered investigational, and, thus, these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity.

Rationale
For the first indication, because there is direct evidence from a large randomized controlled trial (RCT), we focus on it and assess the evidence it provides on clinical utility. Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of a technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are length of life, quality of life, and ability to function -- including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and to managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of a technology, 2 domains are examined: the relevance and the quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent one or more intended clinical uses of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The RCT is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.

For indications 2, 3, and 4, we assess the evidence as a medical test. Evidence reviews assess whether a medical test is clinically useful. A useful test provides information to make a clinical management decision that improves the net health outcome. That is, the balance benefits and harms is better when the test is used to manage the condition than when another test or no test is used to manage the condition.

The first step in assessing a medical test is to formulate the clinical context and purpose of the test. The test must be technically reliable, clinically valid, and clinically useful for that purpose. Evidence reviews assess the evidence on whether a test is clinically valid and clinically useful. Technical reliability is outside the scope of these reviews, and credible information on technical reliability is available from other sources.

IMPLANTABLE PULMONARY ARTERY PRESSURE MONITORING
CardioMEMS Device
Abraham et al (2011, 2016) have reported on the results of the CHAMPION single-blind RCT in which all enrolled patients were implanted with the CardioMEMS device.5,6 Patients were randomized to the CardioMEMS group, in which daily uploaded pulmonary artery pressures were used to guide medical therapy, or to the control group, in which daily uploaded pressures were not made available to investigators and patients continued to receive standard of care management, which included drug adjustments in response to patients’ clinical signs and symptoms. An independent clinical end points committee, blinded to the treatment groups, reviewed abstracted clinical data and determined if hospitalization was related to heart failure hospitalization. The randomized phase ended when the last patient enrolled completed at least 6 months of study follow-up (average, 18 months) and was followed in an open-access phase during which investigators had access to pulmonary artery pressure for all patients (former control and treatment group). The open-access phase lasted for an average of 13 months. In the randomized phase of the trial, if the investigator did not document a medication change in response to an abnormal pulmonary artery pressure elevation, a remote CardioMEMS nurse could send communications to the investigator related to clinical management. No such activity occurred in the nonrandomized phase. Trial characteristics and results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The trial met its primary efficacy end point, with a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of heart failure‒related hospitalizations at 6 months. However, members of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee in 2011 were unable to distinguish the effect of the device from the effect of nurse communications, and so FDA denied approval of CardioMEMS and requested additional clarification from the manufacturer.4 Subsequently, FDA held a second advisory committee meeting in 2013 to review additional data (including open-access phase) and address previous concerns related to impact of nurse communication on the CHAMPION trial.7,8

The 2 major limitations in the early data were related to the potential impact of nurse communication and lack of treatment effect in women.

The sponsor conducted multiple analyses to address the impact of nurse intervention on heart failure-related hospitalizations. These analyses included: (1) independent auditing of all nurse communication to estimate quantitatively the number of hospitalization that could have been influenced by nurse communication, (2) using a propensity-based score to match patients in the CardioMEMS group who did not receive nurse communications with those in the control base, (3) comparing whether the new knowledge of pulmonary arterial pressure in the former control during the open-access phase led to reductions in heart failure-related hospitalizations, (4) comparing whether the ongoing access to pulmonary artery pressures in the treatment group during the open-access phase was accompanied by continued reduced rates of heart failure hospitalizations, and (5) comparing whether if similar access to pulmonary artery pressures in the former control group and treatment group during the open-access phase was associated with similar rates of heart failure-related hospitalizations.7 FDA concluded that all such analyses had methodologic limitations. Propensity matching cannot balance unmeasured characteristics and confounders, and therefore conclusions drawn from propensity analysis were not definitive.8 While FDA concluded that the third-party audit of nurse communication was valid, it was difficult to estimate accurately how many heart failure-related hospitalizations were avoided by the nurse communications. FDA stated that the longitudinal analyses (see points 3 to 5 above) were the most useful regarding supporting device effectiveness. Therefore, only data from analyses 3 to 5 are summarized in Table 4 and discussed next. It is important to acknowledge that all such analyses were post hoc and were conducted with the intent to test the robustness of potentially biased RCT results and therefore results from these analyses should be evaluated to assess consistency and not as an independent source of evidence to support efficacy. As indicated in Table 4, the longitudinal analyses of individual patient data showed that the device appears to be associated with reducing heart failure-related hospitalization rate. However, there are important trial limitations, notably, subject dropouts were not random, and patient risk profiles could have changed from the randomized phase to the open-access phase. In the open-access phase, 93 (34%) of 270 subjects in the treatment group and 110 (39%) of 280 subjects in control group remained in the analysis.

According to the FDA documents, the apparent lack of reduction in heart failure-related hospitalization in women resulted from a greater number of deaths among women in the control group early in the trial and this early mortality resulted in a competing risk for future heart failure hospitalizations. While both the FDA and sponsor conducted multiple analyses to understand device effectiveness in women, FDA statisticians concluded that such analyses did clearly delineate the limited treatment effect in women.8 The effectiveness of CardioMEMS in women may be clarified when results of a postmarketing study, currently ongoing and proposed to enroll at least 35% (n=420) women of the enrollment (n=1,200), are published.

Other subgroup analysis of CHAMPION trial in patients with reduced ejection fraction,9 preserved ejection fraction,10 Medicare-eligible patients,11 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease12 are out of scope and not discussed in this evidence review.

Table 2. Summary of Key RCT Characteristics

Author; Trial

Countries

Sites

Dates

Participants

Interventions

 

 

 

 

 

Active 

Comparator  

Abraham et al (2011, 2016)5,6; CHAMPION 

 U.S

64 

2007-2009 

  • At least 1 previous HFH in the past 12 mo and NYHA class III HF for at least 3 mo
  • 40% patients from academic setting and 60% from community setting

Disease management by daily measurement of pulmonary artery pressures (via CardioMEMS) plus standard of care (n=270)

Disease management by standard of care alone (n=280)  

 HF: heart failure; HFH: heart failure hospitalization; NYHA: New York Heart Association.

 Table 3. Summary of Key RCT Results

Study

HFH, n (events per patient)

Device- or System-Related Complications, n (%)

Pressure-Sensor Failures at 6 or 12 Months

                                         

At 6 Months 

At 12 Months 

 At 6 Months

At 12 Months 

 

Abraham et al (2011, 2016)5,6; CHAMPION

550 

550 

550 

550 

550 

CardioMEMS 

84 (0.32)

182 (0.46) 

3 (1)

Control 

120(0.44) 

279 (0.68) 

3 (1) 

HR (95% CI) 

0.72 (0.60 to 0.85) 

0.67 (0.55 to 0.80)

NA 

NA 

NA 

NNT (95% CI) 

8 (not reported)

 4 (not reported)

NA 

NA 

NA 

CI: confidence interval; HFH: heart failure hospitalization; HR: hazard ratio; NA: not applicable; NNT: number needed to treat.

Table 4. Summary of Additional Analyses of the CHAMPION RCT

Trial Period

Randomized Group

CardioMEMS Data Available

Nurse Communications

Comparison

HR for HFH (95% CI)

Randomized access

Treatment

Yes

Yes

Former control to control

0.52 (0.40 to 0.69)

 

Control 

No 

No 

Former treatment to treatment 

0.93 (0.70 to 1.22)

Open access

Former control

Yes

No

Former control to former treatment

0.80 (0.56 to 1.14)

 

Former control

Yes 

No 

Adapted from Abraham et al (2016) and FDA (2013).7,8
CI: confidence interval; HFH: heart failure hospitalization; HR: hazard ratio.  

The purpose of the gaps tables (see Tables 5 and 6) is to display notable gaps identified in each study. This information is synthesized as a summary of the body of evidence following each table and provides the conclusions on the sufficiency of evidence supporting the position statement.

Table 5. Relevance Gaps 

Study; Trial

Populationa

Interventionb

Comparatorc

Outcomesd

Follow-Upe

Abraham et al (2011, 2016)5,6; CHAMPION 

 

  1. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator. Treatment group received additional nurse communication for enhanced protocol compliance. Trial intention was to assess physician’s ability to use PA pressure information and not capabilities of sponsor’s nursing staff to monitor and correct physician-directed therapy. 

 

 

 

The evidence gaps stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment. PA: pulmonary artery.

  1. Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use.
  2. Intervention key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator; 4.Not the intervention of interest.
  3. Comparator key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Not standard or optimal; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as intervention; 4. Not delivered effectively.
  4. Outcomes key: 1. Key health outcomes not addressed; 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 3. No CONSORT reporting of harms; 4. Not establish and validated measurements; 5. Clinical significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinical significant difference not supported.
  5. Follow-Up key: 1. Not sufficient duration for benefit; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms.   

Table 6. Study Design and Conduct Gaps 

Study

Allocationa

Blindingb

Selective Reportingc

Follow-Upd

Powere

Statisticalf

Abraham (2011, 2016)5,6; CHAMPION 

 

  1. Physicians not blinded to treatment assignment but outcome assessment was independent and blinded 

 

 

 

 

The evidence gaps stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.

  1. Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias.
  2. Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician.
  3. Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.
  4. Follow-Up key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials).
  5. Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important difference.
  6. Statistical key: 1. Intervention is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Intervention is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.  

Nonrandomized Studies
Desai et al (2017) published a retrospective cohort study of Medicare administrative claims data for individuals who received the CardioMEMS device following FDA approval.13 Of 1935 Medicare enrollees who underwent implantation of the device, 1,114 were continuously enrolled and had evaluable data for at least 6 months before, and following, implantation. A subset of 480 enrollees had complete data for 12 months before and after implantation. Study characteristics and results are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. The cumulative incidence of heart failure-related hospitalizations were significantly lower in the postimplantation period than in the preimplantation period at both 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Limitations of this pre-post retrospective study include lack of data on medical history, ejection fraction, indication for implantation and possible confounding due to amplified touchpoints with the health care system necessitated by the device’s implantation.

Vaduganathan (2017) analyzed mandatory and voluntary reports of device-related malfunctions reported to FDA to identify CardioMEMS HF System-related adverse events within the first 3 years of FDA approval.14 From among the more than 5,500 CardioMEMS implants in the first 3 years, there were 155 adverse event reports covering 177 distinct adverse events for a rate of 2.8%. There were 28 reports of pulmonary artery injury/hemoptysis (0.5%) that included 14 intensive care unit stays, 7 intubations, and 6 deaths. Sensor failure, malfunction, or migration occurred in 46 cases, of which 35 required recalibrations. Compared with a reported 2.8% event rate, the serious adverse event rate in CHAMPION trial was 2.6% with 575 implant attempts, including 1 case of pulmonary artery injury and 2 deaths. Limitation of the current analysis primarily included lack of adjudication and limited clinical data.

Table 7. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Characteristics

Author

Study Type

Country/Institution

Dates

Participants

Treatment

Follow-Up

Desai et al (2017)13

Retrospective cohort

U.S./Medicare

2014-2015

Individuals with inpatient CPT codes consistent with use of procedure

CardioMEMS implant

2 cohorts:

  • 6-mo preimplant and postimplant data (n=1,114)
  • 12-mo preimplant and postimplant data (n=480)

Vaduganathan et al (2017)14

Postmarketing surveillance study

U.S./FDA and Abbott

2014-2017

Individuals reporting Cardio-MEMS-related adverse event

CardioMEMS implant

Not applicable

FDA: Food and Drug Administration.

Table 8. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Results

Study

HFH at 6 Months

HFH at 12 Months

Safety

Desai et al (2017)13

1,114

480

-

Preimplant, n

1,020

696

-

Postimplant, n

381

300

-

HR (95% CI); p

0.55 (0.49 to 0.61); <0.001

0.66 (0.57 to 0.76); <0.001

-

Vaduganathan et al (2017)14 

 

 

Estimated 5,500 received CardioMEMS 

AE cohort identified from MAUDE database

-

-

155 (2.8%) AEs; 28 pulmonary artery injury or hemoptysis (0.5%), and 2 (0.4%) deaths

AE: adverse event; CI: confidence interval; HFH: heart failure hospitalization; HR: hazard ratio.

Case Series
Heywood et al (2017) reported pulmonary artery pressure data for the first 2000 consecutive patients with at least 6 months of follow-up who were implanted with CardioMEMS. No clinical data were reported except for pulmonary artery measurement.15 Study characteristics and results are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. The mean age of the cohort enrolled was 70 years and the mean follow-up period was 333 days. There was a median of 1.2 days between remote pressure transmissions and greater than 98% weekly use of the system, demonstrating a high level of adherence.

Table 9. Summary of Key Case Series Characteristics

Author

Country/institution

Participants

Treatment Delivery

Follow-Up (SD)

Heywood et al (2017)15

U.S./Abbott

First 2,000 individuals who received CardioMEMS with follow-up data for a minimum of 6 mo

CardioMEMS

333 (125) d

Table 10. Summary of Key Case Series Results  

Author

Treatment

AUC (mm Hg day)

Adherence

Heywood et al (2017)15

CardioMEMS device

  • -32.8 mm Hg/d (1 mo)
  • -156.2 mm Hg/d (3 mo)
  • -434.0 mm Hg/d (6 mo)
  • Median days between transmissions: 1.07 d (first 30 d) and 1.27 days (after 6 mo)
  • Use of the system: 98.6% (IQR, 82.9%-100.0%)

AUC: area under the curve; IQR: interquartile range 

Section Summary: Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring
The pivotal CHAMPION RCT reported a statistically significant decrease in heart failurerelated hospitalizations in patients implanted with CardioMEMS device compared with usual care. However, trial results were potentially biased in favor of the treatment group due to use of additional nurse communication to enhance protocol compliance with the device. The trial intended to assess the physician’s ability to use pulmonary artery pressure information and not the capabilities of the sponsor’s nursing staff to monitor and correct physician-directed therapy. The manufacturer conducted multiple analyses to address the potential bias from the nurse interventions. These analyses were reviewed favorably by FDA. While these analyses demonstrated the consistency of benefit from the CardioMEMS device, all such analyses have methodologic limitations. With greater adoption of this technology, it is likely to be used by a broader group of clinicians with variable training in the actual procedure and used in patients at a higher risk compared with those in the CHAMPION trial. Early safety data have been suggestive of a higher rate of procedural complications, particularly related to pulmonary artery injury. Given that the intervention is invasive and intended to be used for a highly prevalent condition, in the light of limited safety data, lack of demonstrable mortality benefit, and pending questions related to its benefit for reduction in hospitalization, the net benefit remains uncertain. Many concerns may be clarified by an ongoing postmarketing study that proposes to enroll 1,200 patients (at least 35% women) is reported.

NONINVASIVE THORACIC BIOIMPEDANCE/IMPEDANCE CARDIOGRAPHY
Clinical Context and Test Purpose
The purpose of thoracic bioimpedance in patients who have heart failure in an outpatient setting is (1) to guide volume management, (2) to identify physiologic changes that precede clinical symptoms and thus allow preventive interventions, and (3) to prevent hospitalizations.

The question addressed in this evidence review is: Does use of thoracic bioimpedance/impedance cardiography improve health outcomes in individuals with heart failure in the outpatient setting?

The following PICOTS were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients
The relevant population of interest is patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

Interventions
The test being considered is thoracic bioimpedance.

Comparators
The comparator of interest is standard clinical care without testing. Decisions on guiding volume management are being made based on signs and symptoms.

Outcomes
The general outcomes of interest are the prevention of decompensation episodes, reductions in hospitalization and mortality, and improvements in quality of life.

Timing
Trials of using thoracic bioimpedance in this population were not found. Generally, demonstration of outcomes over a 1-year period is meaningful for interventions.

Setting
Patients will receive treatment in the outpatient setting.

Technically Reliable
Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this evidence review, and alternative sources exist. This evidence review focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid
A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Several studies were excluded from the evaluation of the clinical validity of the thoracic bioimpedance testing because they did not include information needed to assess clinical validity.16-18

Packer et al (2006) reported on use of impedance cardiography measured by BioZ impedance cardiography monitor to predict decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure.19 In this study, 212 stable patients with heart failure and a recent episode of decompensation underwent serial evaluation and blinded impedance cardiography testing every 2 weeks for 26 weeks and were followed for the occurrence of death or worsening heart failure requiring hospitalization or emergent care. Results are summarized in Table 11. A composite score of 3 impedance cardiography parameters was a predictor of an event during the next 14 days (p<0.001).

Table 11. Clinical Validity of 3-Level Risk Score for BioZ Impedance Cardiography Monitor

Author

Initial N

Final N

Excluded Samples

Prevalence of Condition

Clinical Validity: Mean Probability of Outcome (95% CI), %

 

 

 

 

 

 Low Risk

Medium Risk 

High Risk 

Packer et al (2006)19

212

212

None

59 patients had 104 episodes of decompensated HF including 16 deaths, 78 hospitalizations, 10 ED visits

1.0 (0.5 to 1.9)

3.5 (2.4 to 4.8)

8.4 (5.8 to 11.6)

CI: confidence interval; ED: emergency department; HF: heart failure.  

Section Summary: Clinically Valid
The clinical validity of using thoracic bioimpedance for patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF has not been established. Association studies are insufficient evidence to determine whether thoracic bioimpedance can improve outcomes patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF. There are no studies reporting the clinical validity regarding sensitivity, specificity, or predictive value.

Clinically Useful
A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence
Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

Amir et al (2017) reported on results of a prospective study in which 59 patients recently hospitalized for heart failure were selected for ReDS-guided treatment for 90 days. The number of heart failure hospitalizations during 90-day ReDS-guided therapy were compared with hospitalizations in the preceding 90 days before enrollment and the 90 days following discontinuation of ReDS monitoring.20 During treatment, patients were equipped with the ReDS wearable vest, which was worn once a day at home to measure lung fluid content. Study characteristics and results are summarized in Tables 12 and 13. The rate of heart failure hospitalizations was lower during the ReDS-guided follow-up compared with pre and posttreatment periods. Interpretation of results is uncertain due to the lack of concurrent control and randomization, short-term follow-up, large CIs, and lack of clarity about lost-to-follow-up during the post-ReDS period. An RCT comparing ReDS monitoring with standard of care (SMILE; NCT02448342) was initiated but terminated before its completion. 

Table 12. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Characteristics

Author

Study Type

Country

Dates

Participants

Treatment

Mean FU (SD), d

Amir et al (2017)20

Pre-post prospective cohort

Israel

2012-2015

Patients ≥18 y with stage C heart failure, regardless of LVEF (n=59)

ReDS Wearable System

83.0 (25.4)

 FU: follow-up; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; SD: standard deviation.

 Table 13. Summary of Key Nonrandomized Study Results 

Study

Heart Failure-Related Hospitalizations (events/patient/3 mo)

Deaths

Amir et al (2017)20

 

50

50

Pre-90-day period (control)

 

0.04

0

90-day treatment period

 

0.30

2

Post-90-day period (control)

 

0.19

2

Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval); p  

  • 0.07 (0.01 to 0.54); 0.01a
  • 0.11 (0.014 to 0.88); 0.037b 

 

 

a Treatment vs pretreatment period.
b Treatment vs posttreatment period. 

Chain of Evidence
Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility. Because the clinical validity of using thoracic bioimpedance has not been proved, a chain of evidence to support its clinical utility cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Clinical Utility
The clinical utility of using thoracic bioimpedance for patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF has not been established. One prospective longitudinal study reported that ReDS-guided management reduced heart failure readmissions in ADHF patients recently discharged from the hospital. However, interpretation of results is uncertain due to the lack of concurrent controls and randomization, short-term follow-up, large CIs, and lack of clarity about lost-to-follow-up during the post-ReDS monitoring period. An RCT comparing ReDS monitoring with standard of care was initiated but terminated before its completion.

INERT GAS REBREATHING
Clinical Context and Test Purpose
The purpose of inert gas breathing in patients who have heart failure in an outpatient setting is (1) to guide volume management, (2) to identify physiologic changes that precede clinical symptoms and thus allow preventive interventions, and (3) to prevent hospitalizations.

The question addressed in this evidence review is: Does use of inert gas breathing improve health outcomes in individuals with heart failure in the outpatient setting?

The following PICOTS were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients
The relevant population of interest is patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF.

Interventions
The test being considered is inert gas breathing.

Comparators
The comparator of interest is standard clinical care without testing. Decisions on guiding volume management are being made based on signs and symptoms.

Outcomes
The general outcomes of interest are the prevention of decompensation episodes, reduction in hospitalization and mortality, and improvement in quality of life.

Timing
Trials of using inert gas breathing in this population were not found. Generally, demonstration of outcomes over a 1-year period is meaningful for interventions.

Setting
Patients will receive treatment in the outpatient setting.

Technically Reliable
Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this evidence review, and alternative sources exist. This evidence review focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid
A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

No studies on the clinical validity were identified that would establish how the use of inert gas rebreathing measurements helps detect the likelihood of decompensation.

Section Summary: Clinically Valid
The clinical validity of using inert gas breathing for patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF has not been established.

Clinically Useful
A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence
Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No studies were identified that determined how the use of inert gas rebreathing measurements is associated with changes in patient management or evaluated the effects of this technology on patient outcomes.

Chain of Evidence
Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility. Because the clinical validity of using inert gas breathing has not been proved, a chain of evidence to support clinical utility cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Clinically Valid
No studies of clinical utility were identified that determined how the use of inert gas breathing measurements in managing heart failure affects patient outcomes. It is unclear how such devices will improve patient outcomes.

NONINVASIVE LEFT VENTRICULAR END-DIASTOLIC PRESSURE ESTIMATION
Clinical Context and Test Purpose
The purpose of noninvasive left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) estimation in patients who have heart failure in an outpatient setting is (1) to guide volume management, (2) to identify physiologic changes that precede clinical symptoms and thus allow preventive interventions, and (3) to prevent hospitalizations.

The question addressed in this evidence review is: Does use of noninvasive LVEDP estimation improve health outcomes in individuals with heart failure in the outpatient setting?

The following PICOTS were used to select literature to inform this review.

Patients
The relevant population of interest is patients with chronic heart failure who are at risk of developing ADHF.

Interventions
The test being considered is noninvasive LVEDP estimation.

Comparators
The comparator of interest is standard clinical care without testing. Decisions guiding volume management are being made based on signs and symptoms.

Outcomes
The general outcomes of interest are the prevention of decompensation episodes, reduction in hospitalization and mortality, and improvement in quality of life.

Timing
Trials of using noninvasive LVEDP estimation in this population were not found. Generally, demonstration of outcomes over a 1-year period is meaningful for interventions.

Setting
Patients will receive treatment in the outpatient setting.

Technically Reliable
Assessment of technical reliability focuses on specific tests and operators and requires review of unpublished and often proprietary information. Review of specific tests, operators, and unpublished data are outside the scope of this evidence review, and alternative sources exist. This evidence review focuses on the clinical validity and clinical utility.

Clinically Valid
A test must detect the presence or absence of a condition, the risk of developing a condition in the future, or treatment response (beneficial or adverse).

Silber et al (2012) reported on finger photoplethysmography during the Valsalva maneuver performed in 33 patients before cardiac catheterization.21 LVEDP was measured via a catheter placed in the left ventricle and used as the reference standard. For identifying LVEDP greater than 15 mm Hg, finger photoplethysmography during the Valsalva maneuver was 85% sensitive (95% CI, 54% to 97%) and 80% specific (95% CI, 56% to 93%).  

Section Summary: Clinically Valid
Only 1 study was identified assessing the use of LVEDP monitoring in this patient population; it reported an 85% sensitivity and an 80% specificity to detect LVEDP greater than 15 mm Hg.

Clinically Useful
A test is clinically useful if the use of the results informs management decisions that improve the net health outcome of care. The net health outcome can be improved if patients receive correct therapy, or more effective therapy, or avoid unnecessary therapy, or avoid unnecessary testing.

Direct Evidence
Direct evidence of clinical utility is provided by studies that have compared health outcomes for patients managed with and without the test. Because these are intervention studies, the preferred evidence would be from RCTs.

No studies were identified that determined how the use of noninvasive LVEDP estimation is associated with changes in patient management or evaluated the effects on patient outcomes.

Chain of Evidence
Indirect evidence on clinical utility rests on clinical validity. If the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate test performance, no inferences can be made about clinical utility.

Because the clinical validity of using noninvasive LVEDP estimation has only been demonstrated in a small, single study, a chain of evidence to support clinical utility cannot be constructed.

Section Summary: Clinically Valid
No studies of clinical utility were identified that assessed how the use of noninvasive LVEDP estimation in managing heart failure affects patient outcomes. A chain of evidence on the clinical utility of noninvasive LVEDP estimation cannot be constructed because it is unclear how these devices will improve patient outcomes.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
For individuals who have heart failure in outpatient settings who receive hemodynamic monitoring with an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor device, the evidence includes RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. One implantable pressure monitor, the CardioMEMS device, has U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. The pivotal CHAMPION RCT reported a statistically significant decrease in heart failure-related hospitalizations in patients implanted with CardioMEMS device compared with usual care. However, trial results were potentially biased in favor of the treatment group due to use of additional nurse communication to enhance protocol compliance with the device. The manufacturer conducted multiple analyses to address potential bias from the nurse interventions. Results were reviewed favorably by the Food and Drug Administration. While these analyses demonstrated the consistency of benefit from the CardioMEMS device, all such analyses have methodologic limitations. Early safety data have been suggestive of a higher rate of procedural complications, particularly related to pulmonary artery injury. Given that the intervention is invasive and intended to be used for a highly prevalent condition, in the light of limited safety data, lack of demonstrable mortality benefit, and pending questions related to its benefit in reducing hospitalizations, the net benefit remains uncertain. Many of these concerns may be clarified by an ongoing postmarketing study that proposes to enroll 1,200 patients (at least 35% women) is reported. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

For individuals who have heart failure in outpatient settings who receive hemodynamic monitoring by thoracic impedance, with inert gas rebreathing, or of arterial pressure during the Valsalva maneuver, the evidence includes uncontrolled prospective studies and case series. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. There is a lack of RCT evidence evaluating whether the use of these technologies improves health outcomes over standard active management of heart failure patient. The case series have reported physiologic measurement-related outcomes and/or associations between monitoring information and heart failure exacerbations, but do not provide definitive evidence on device efficacy. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

PRACTICE GUIDELINES AND POSITION STATEMENTS
American College of Cardiology et al
The 2017 joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America on the management of heart failure offered no recommendations for the use of ambulatory monitoring devices.22 

European Society of Cardiology
The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure stated the following: "Monitoring of pulmonary artery pressures using a wireless implantable hemodynamic monitoring system (CardioMEMS) may be considered in symptomatic patients with heart failure with previous heart failure hospitalization in order to reduce the risk of recurrent heart failure hospitalization (Class IIb Level B recommendation)."23

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
The updated 2010 guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on chronic heart failure management did not include outpatient hemodynamic monitoring as a recommendation.24 This guidance is under review and update and is expected in August 2018.

In 2013, the Institute issued guidance on the insertion and use of implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors in chronic heart failure.25 The recommendations concluded that "Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of the insertion and use of implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors in chronic heart failure is limited in both quality and quantity."

U.S. PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Not applicable. 

ONGOING AND UNPUBLISHED CLINICAL TRIALS
Some currently unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 14.

Table 14. Summary of Key Trials

NCT No. Trial Name Planned Enrollment Completion Date

Ongoing

NCT01121107

Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring to Optimize Heart Failure Therapy Study

486 Apr 2015 (completed)

Unpublished

NCT00409916a

Prevention of Heart Failure Events With Impedance Cardiography Testing (PREVENT-HF): Device BioZ Dx

500 Dec 2012 (unknown)

NCT: national clinical trial.
ª Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.  

References:

  1. Opasich C, Rapezzi C, Lucci D, et al. Precipitating factors and decision-making processes of short-term worsening heart failure despite "optimal" treatment (from the IN-CHF Registry). Am J Cardiol. Aug 15 2001;88(4):382-387. PMID 11545758
  2. McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, et al. Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. Aug 18 2004;44(4):810-819. PMID 15312864
  3. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): CardioMEMS HF System. 2014; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/P100045b.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2018.
  4. Loh JP, Barbash IM, Waksman R. Overview of the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting on the CardioMEMS Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System. J Am Coll Cardiol. Apr 16 2013;61(15):1571-1576. PMID 23352783
  5. Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Feb 19 2011;377(9766):658-666. PMID 21315441
  6. Abraham WT, Stevenson LW, Bourge RC, et al. Sustained efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure to guide adjustment of chronic heart failure therapy: complete follow-up results from the CHAMPION randomised trial. Lancet. Jan 30 2016;387(10017):453-461. PMID 26560249
  7. CardioMEMSChampion™ Heart Failure Monitoring System: Presentation - CardioMEMS: Oct. 9, 2013. 2013; https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111163201/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/UCM370951.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2018.
  8. CardioMEMS Champion™ HF Monitoring System: FDA Review of P100045/A004FDA Presentation - CardioMEMS: Oct. 9, 2013. 2013; https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111163259/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/UCM370955.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2018.
  9. Givertz MM, Stevenson LW, Costanzo MR, et al. Pulmonary artery pressure-guided management of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. Oct 10 2017;70(15):1875-1886. PMID 28982501
  10. Adamson PB, Abraham WT, Bourge RC, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring guides management to reduce decompensation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail. Nov 2014;7(6):935-944. PMID 25286913
  11. Adamson PB, Abraham WT, Stevenson LW, et al. Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Heart Failure Management Reduces 30-Day Readmissions. Circ Heart Fail. Jun 2016;9(6). PMID 27220593
  12. Krahnke JS, Abraham WT, Adamson PB, et al. Heart failure and respiratory hospitalizations are reduced in patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with the use of an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring device. J Card Fail. Mar 2015;21(3):240-249. PMID 25541376
  13. Desai AS, Bhimaraj A, Bharmi R, et al. Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring Reduces Heart Failure Hospitalizations in "Real-World" Clinical Practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. May 16 2017;69(19):2357-2365. PMID 28330751
  14. Vaduganathan M, DeFilippis EM, Fonarow GC, et al. ostmarketing adverse events related to the CardioMEMS HF System. JAMA Cardiol. Nov 1 2017;2(11):1277-1279. PMID 28975249
  15. Heywood JT, Jermyn R, Shavelle D, et al. Impact of Practice-Based Management of Pulmonary Artery Pressures in 2000 Patients Implanted With the CardioMEMS Sensor. Circulation. Apr 18 2017;135(16):1509-1517. PMID 28219895
  16. Kamath SA, Drazner MH, Tasissa G, et al. Correlation of impedance cardiography with invasive hemodynamic measurements in patients with advanced heart failure: the BioImpedance CardioGraphy (BIG) substudy of the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) Trial. Am Heart J. Aug 2009;158(2):217-223. PMID 19619697
  17. Anand IS, Greenberg BH, Fogoros RN, et al. Design of the Multi-Sensor Monitoring in Congestive Heart Failure (MUSIC) study: prospective trial to assess the utility of continuous wireless physiologic monitoring in heart failure. J Card Fail. Jan 2011;17(1):11-16. PMID 21187259
  18. Anand IS, Tang WH, Greenberg BH, et al. Design and performance of a multisensor heart failure monitoring algorithm: results from the multisensor monitoring in congestive heart failure (MUSIC) study. J Card Fail. Apr 2012;18(4):289-295. PMID 22464769
  19. Packer M, Abraham WT, Mehra MR, et al. Utility of impedance cardiography for the identification of short-term risk of clinical decompensation in stable patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. Jun 6 2006;47(11):2245-2252. PMID 16750691
  20. Amir O, Ben-Gal T, Weinstein JM, et al. Evaluation of remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) technology-guided therapy for decreasing heart failure re-hospitalizations. Int J Cardiol. Aug 1 2017;240:279-284. PMID 28341372
  21. Silber HA, Trost JC, Johnston PV, et al. Finger photoplethysmography during the Valsalva maneuver reflects left ventricular filling pressure. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. May 2012;302(10):H2043-2047. PMID 22389389
  22. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. Aug 8 2017;70(6):776-803. PMID 28461007
  23. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). Dec 2016;69(12):1167. PMID 27894487
  24. Mant J, Al-Mohammad A, Swain S, et al. Management of chronic heart failure in adults: synopsis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline. Ann Intern Med. Aug 16 2011;155(4):252-259. PMID 21844551
  25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Insertion and use of implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors in chronic heart failure [IPG463]. 2013; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg463. Accessed April 4, 2016.
  26. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). National coverage decision for cardiac output monitoring by thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) (20.16). 2006; http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=267&ncdver=3&NCAId=82&NcaName=Electrical+Bioimpedance+for+Cardiac+Output+Monitoring&IsPopup=y&bc=AAAAAAAACAAAAA%3D%3D&. Accessed May 6, 2015.

Coding Section

Codes Number Description
CPT   See Policy Guidelines
  33289 (effective 01/01/2019)  Transcatheter implantation of wireless pulmonary artery pressure sensor for long-term hemodynamic monitoring, including deployment and calibration of the sensor, right heart catheterization, selective pulmonary catheterization, radiological supervision and interpretation, and pulmonary artery angiography, when performed 
  93264 (effective 01/01/2019)  Remote monitoring of a wireless pulmonary artery pressure sensor for up to 30 days, including at least weekly downloads of pulmonary artery pressure recordings, interpretation(s), trend analysis, and report(s) by a physician or other qualified health care professional 
ICD-9 Procedure    
ICD-9 Diagnosis   Investigational for all diagnooses
  428.0-428.9 Heart failure code range
HCPCS C9741

Right heart catheterization with implantation of wireless pressure sensor in the pulmonary artery, including any type of measurement, angiography, imaging supervision, interpretation, and report

ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15)   Investigational for all diagnoses
  I50.1-I50.9 Heart failure code range
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15)   Not applicable. ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. Policy is only for outpatient services.
Type of Service Cardiology  
Place of Service Outpaitent  

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive. 

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology© American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2014 Forward     

05/02/2019 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating regulatory status, guidelines (coding updated), and references. 

12/20/2018 

Updating with 2019 codes.  

05/23/2018 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating description, background, rationale and refences.Updating review date.

05/18/2017 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, regulatory status, rationale and references. 

05/12/2016 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating background, description, rationale, references and coding. 

05/14/2015 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updated regulatory status, rationale and references. Added guidelines and coding. 

05/06/2014

Annual review. Updated rationale and references. Added related policies and benefit applications. No change to policy intent.


Go Back