Abstract:Aims: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have become a standard of care in end-stage heart failure. Limited data exist comparing outcomes of HeartMate3 (HM3) and HeartWare HVAD (HW). We aimed to compare midterm outcomes of these devices. Methods and results: Investigator-initiated retrospective-observational comparative analysis of all patients who underwent primary LVAD implantation of either HM3 or HW at our centre between January 2010 and December 2020. Data were derived from a prospective registry. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and heart transplantation. Secondary endpoints included device-related major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which included major bleeding, major neurological dysfunction (defined as persisting neurological impairment for ≥24 h), device-related major infection (excluding driveline infections), major device malfunctions leading to re-intervention or partial device exchange (pump failure, outflow-graft twist or failure, controller failure, battery failure, patient cable failure, but excluding pump thrombosis), and pump thrombosis. Further secondary endpoints included right heart failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, driveline infections, and surgical re-interventions. The secondary outcomes were analysed not only for the first event but also for recurrent events. The analysis included competing risks analysis and recurrent event regression analysis, with adjustment for confounders age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) level. Out of 106 primary CF-LVAD implantations, 36 (34%) received HM3 and 70 (66%) received HW. Median follow-up was 1.48 years [interquartile range 0.67, 2.41]. HM3 was more often implanted in men (91.7% vs. 72.9%, P = 0.024); patients were older (median 61 years [54, 66.5] vs. 52.5 years [43, 60], P < 0.001), had a higher BMI (median 26.7 kg/m2 [23.4, 29.0] vs. 24.3 kg/m2 [20.7, 27.4], P = 0.013), had more comorbidities, and were more likely targeted for destination therapy (36.1% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.010). Death occurred in 33.3% of HM3 patients, compared with 22.9% of HW patients, P = 0.247 (probability of survival at 4 years, 54.7% vs. 74.1%, P = 0.296). After adjustment for confounders, we observed a significant six-fold risk increase in device malfunctions for HW [hazard ratio (HR) 6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.89, 22.32], P = 0.003], but no significant differences in pump thrombosis (P = 0.173) or overall survival (P = 0.801). Conclusions: Comparing midterm outcomes between HM3 and HW for LVAD support from a prospective registry, HW patients had a significantly higher risk of device malfunctions. No significant differences were evident between devices in overall survival and in respect to most outcomes.

Multicenter evaluation of left ventricular assist device implantation with or without ECMO bridge in cardiogenic shock

Device Strategies for Patients in INTERMACS Profiles 1 and 2 Cardiogenic Shock: Double Bridge With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Initial Implant of More Durable Devices

Nine Years of Continuous Flow LVAD (HeartMate 3): Survival and LVAD-Related Complications before and after Hospital Discharge

Third-generation continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a comparative outcome analysis by device type

Abstract 12772: In Hospital Outcomes With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Alone vs Combined With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device

Left ventricular assist devices versus medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: An analysis of INTERMACS Profiles 4 and 5 to 7 from the ROADMAP study

Novel Left Ventricular Unloading Strategies in Patients on Peripheral Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support

HeartMate 3 implantation with an emphasis on the biventricular configuration

Unplanned hospital readmissions following HeartMate 3 implantation: Readmission rates, causes, and impact on survival

Utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Different ECLS Pump Configurations for Temporary Right Ventricular Assist Device in LVAD Patients: A Retrospective Case–Control Study

Left ventricular unloading via percutaneous assist device during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest

Comparative analysis of regional outcomes and adverse events after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation: An IMACS analysis

A multicenter evaluation of external outflow graft obstruction with a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device

Association between caseload volume and outcomes in left ventricular assist device implantations - a EUROMACS analysis

Ventricular Assist Device using a Thoracotomybased Implant Technique: Multi-center HeartMate 3 SWIFT Study

Multicenter clinical evaluation of the HeartMate 1000 IP left ventricular assist device

Outcomes from Adult Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Cardiovascular Disease Center from 2009 to 2019

Short-Term Outcomes of Elective High-Risk PCI with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A Single-Centre Registry

Clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditures in the real world with left ventricular assist devices - The CLEAR-LVAD study

Increasing Opportunity for Lung Transplant in Interstitial Lung Disease With Pulmonary Hypertension