ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2022
Impact of the HeartMate 3 continuous-flow left ventricular assist device in patients with small body size.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Echocardiographic assessment of a novel blood-guiding accessory for left ventricular assist devices in swine.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- The approach to placement of a continuous-flow intracorporeal ventricular assist device in small left ventricle.JHLT open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLimited data are available for use of the HeartMate 3 (HM 3) left ventricular assist device in patients with a small body surface area (BSA). Because the HM 3 is currently the sole device available worldwide, we conducted a single-centre retrospective study of patients with a small BSA (<1.5 m2) who underwent HM 3 implantation to better understand the operative and postoperative management.
methodsThis study enrolled 64 consecutive patients who had undergone HM 3 implantation from August 2018 to July 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on their BSA before the operation: BSA of <1.5 m2 (small BSA group, n = 18) and BSA of ≥1.5 m2 (regular BSA group, n = 46). The primary study endpoint was survival free of events such as disabling stroke and pump failure. The secondary endpoint was the frequency of adverse events.
resultsThe average BSA was 1.38 m2 in the small BSA group. The overall event-free survival rate at 12 months was 100% and 86.7% in the small BSA group and regular BSA group, respectively, and no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (log-rank P = 0.2). The number of cumulative adverse events of death, stroke of any severity, driveline infection, pump infection, ventricular arrhythmia, gastrointestinal Haemorrhage and pump failure was similar between the 2 groups.
conclusionsThe HM 3 was safely implanted in patients with a small BSA, and postoperative outcomes were acceptable regardless of BSA. However, further research is needed to confirm the indications for HM 3 implantation in even smaller patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.