ArticleESC heart failure2025
Analysis of outcomes in patients with HeartMate 3 with and without right ventricular assist device support.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- A Contemporary Guide of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Analysis of outcomes in patients with HeartMate 3 with and without right ventricular assist device support.ESC heart failure · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsFollowing HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation, acute right heart failure necessitating temporary right ventricular assist device (tRVAD) support has not been extensively described. We examined clinical outcomes in patients with HM3 LVAD stratified by the need for tRVAD support. METHODS AND
resultsThis was a single-centre, retrospective study of patients who underwent primary HM3 implantation from 2018 to 2022. Patients were placed on tRVAD (concomitant or delayed) support due to clinical deterioration. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality following HM3 implantation using competing risk analysis with heart transplantation acting as the competing event. A matched cohort analysis was also performed to evaluate the primary outcome of patients with and without tRVAD support. Secondary outcomes included an analysis of risk of LVAD-related adverse events stratified by the presence of tRVAD. Of the 192 patients (median age 60 [49-68] years, 74% male, 37% white), 51 (26%) required tRVAD support. Compared with those with HM3 alone, the tRVAD group had a higher percentage of INTERMACS profile 1 or 2 (49% vs. 27%, P = 0.0005) and had higher rates of pre-operative VA-ECMO (28% vs. 5%, P < 0.0001). The tRVAD group had a higher 1-year all-cause mortality (33% vs. 3%, adjusted HR [95%CI]: 32.4 [9.51-110], P < 0.0001) compared with the HM3 alone group. In-hospital mortality for patients with tRVAD was 26% compared with 1% in patients with HM3 alone (P < 0.0001). In the matched cohort analysis, significantly higher risk of both stroke (HR [95% CI]: 5.75 [1.55-21.3], P = 0.009) and dialysis (HR [95% CI]: 13.4 (3.96-45.5), P < 0.0001) was observed in the tRVAD cohort. Compared with concomitant tRVAD support, the delayed tRVAD group did not have a significantly higher risk of adverse events.
conclusionsIn this large single-centre experience, patients undergoing HM3 LVAD requiring tRVAD support had significantly higher risks of adverse clinical outcomes.
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.