ArticleESC heart failure2023
Identifying patients at risk: multi-centre comparison of HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemocompatibility and Long-Term Outcomes in HeartWare Versus HeartMate II Versus HeartMate 3: Multicenter Real-World Cohort.Artificial organs · 2026Observational
- Validation of the Hemodynamic Classification System for Hemodynamic-Related Events in Patients With Durable Left Ventricular Assist Devices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Multi-Organ Failure Trajectories Following Heart Transplantation and HeartMate 3 Implantation: A 1-Year Postprocedural Follow-Up Study Utilizing the MELD-XI Scale.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A study on the global patterns in the design and development of ventricular assist devices: a visualization approach.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Antithrombotic Therapy for Mechanical Circulatory Support: Time to Throw the Baby (Warfarin) Out With the Bathwater (Aspirin)?Circulation. Heart failure · 2024Article
- Performance of risk scores in predicting major bleeding in left ventricular assist device recipients: a comparative external validation.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Survival after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device implantation: real-world data from Europe.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Identifying patients at risk: multi-centre comparison of HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Five-Year Outcome After Continuous Flow LVAD With Full-Magnetic (HeartMate 3) Versus Hybrid Levitation System (HeartWare): A Propensity-Score Matched Study From an All-Comers Multicentre Registry.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSince the withdrawal of HeartWare (HVAD) from the global market, there is an ongoing discussion if and which patients require prophylactically exchange for a HeartMate 3 (HM3). Therefore, it is important to study outcome differences between HVAD and HM3 patients. Because centres differ in patient selection and standard of care, we performed a propensity score (PS)-based study including centres that implanted both devices and aimed to identify which HVAD patients are at highest risk. METHODS AND
resultsWe performed an international multi-centre study (n = 1021) including centres that implanted HVAD and HM3. PS-matching was performed using clinical variables and the implanting centre. Survival and complications were compared. As a sensitivity analysis, PS-adjusted Cox regression was performed. Landmark analysis with conditional survival >2 years was conducted to evaluate long-term survival differences. To identify which HVAD patients may benefit from a HM3 upgrade, Cox regression using pre-operative variables and their interaction with device type was performed. Survival was significantly better for HM3 patients (P < 0.01) in 458 matched patients, with a median follow-up of 23 months. Within the matched cohort, HM3 patients had a median age of 58 years, and 83% were male, 80% of the HVAD patients were male, with a median age of 59 years. PS-adjusted Cox regression confirmed a significantly better survival for HM3 patients when compared with HVAD, with a HR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.14-1.85, P < 0.01). Pump thrombosis (P < 0.01) and ischaemic stroke (P < 0.01) occurred less in HM3 patients. No difference was found for haemorrhagic stroke, right heart failure, driveline infection, and major bleeding. Landmark-analysis confirmed a significant difference in conditional survival >2 years after implantation (P = 0.03). None of the pre-operative variable interactions in the Cox regression were significant.
conclusionsHM3 patients have a significantly better survival and a lower incidence of ischaemic strokes and pump thrombosis than HVAD patients. This survival difference persisted after 2 years of implantation. Additional research using post-operative variables is warranted to identify which HVAD patients need an upgrade to HM3 or expedited transplantation.
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.