Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38360679›Full record

ArticleJournal of chest surgery2024

Surgical Outcomes of Centrifugal Continuous-Flow Implantable Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Heartmate 3 versus Heartware Ventricular Assist Device.

Kinam Shin, Won Chul Cho, Nara Shin, Hong Rae Kim, Min-Seok Kim, Cheol Hyun Chung, Sung-Ho Jung

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chest surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Recent Developments in Ventricular Assist Device Therapy.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kinam ShinDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2098-1205
Won Chul ChoThoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3858-6516
Nara ShinHeart Institute, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7829-1765
Hong Rae KimDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-6065
Min-Seok KimHeart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation Center, Asan Medical Center Heart Institute, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0860-3650
Cheol Hyun ChungDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-6011
Sung-Ho JungDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3699-0312
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are widely employed as a therapeutic option for end-stage heart failure. We evaluated the outcomes associated with centrifugal-flow LVAD implantation, comparing 2 device models: the Heartmate 3 (HM3) and the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD). Methods: Data were collected from patients who underwent LVAD implantation between June 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022. We analyzed overall survival, first rehospitalization, and early, late, and LVAD-related complications. Results: In total, 74 patients underwent LVAD implantation, with 42 receiving the HM3 and 32 the HVAD. A mild Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score was more common among HM3 than HVAD recipients (p=0.006), and patients receiving the HM3 exhibited lower rates of preoperative ventilator use (p=0.010) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (p=0.039). The overall early mortality rate was 5.4% (4 of 74 patients), with no significant difference between groups. Regarding early right ventricular (RV) failure, HM3 implantation was associated with a lower rate (13 of 42 [31.0%]) than HVAD implantation (18 of 32 [56.2%], p=0.051). The median rehospitalization-free period was longer for HM3 recipients (16.9 months) than HVAD recipients (5.3 months, p=0.013). Furthermore, HM3 recipients displayed a lower incidence of late hemorrhagic stroke (p=0.016). In the multivariable analysis, preoperative use of continuous renal replacement therapy (odds ratio, 22.31; p=0.002) was the only significant predictor of postoperative RV failure. Conclusion: The LVAD models (HM3 and HVAD) demonstrated comparable overall survival rates. However, the HM3 was associated with a lower risk of late hemorrhagic stroke.

Indexed as

Heartmate3Left ventricular assist device

Identifiers

PMID38360679
PMCPMC10927433
OpenAlexW4391880150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.