ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2024
Association between caseload volume and outcomes in left ventricular assist device implantations - a EUROMACS analysis.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The fourth report of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) of the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery: focus on standardized outcome ratios.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis EUROMACS study was conducted with the primary aim of investigating the association between a centre's annual caseload and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 4802 patients identified between 2011 and 2020 from 35 participating centres were dichotomized based on the annual caseload of the treating centre at the time of device implant (≤30 vs. >30 LVAD implantations/year). The primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival analysis, device-related adverse events and readmissions. Cumulative follow-up was 10 003 patient-years, with a median follow-up of 1.54 years (interquartile range 0.52-3.15). Patients from higher volume centres more frequently presented in INTERMACS levels 1 and 2, suffered from right heart dysfunction and needed inotropic support. No difference was observed in adjusted 1-year survival. Adjusted overall survival probability was lower in higher volume centres (p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis of HeartMate 3 devices only, higher volume centres were associated with decreased odds of 1-year survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.97, p = 0.041). Similar findings were observed in the cumulative (i.e. learning curve) caseload analyses.
conclusionIn patients undergoing LVAD implantation, centre volume was not associated with 1-year survival, but was related to device-related adverse events. Patient profiles differed with respect to centre size. These findings underscore the necessity for ongoing quality improvement initiatives in all centres, regardless of their annual caseload. Efforts are needed to standardize patient selection and preconditioning to further improve patient outcome.
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.