Observational studyArtificial organs2026
Hemocompatibility and Long-Term Outcomes in HeartWare Versus HeartMate II Versus HeartMate 3: Multicenter Real-World Cohort.
Observational study in Artificial organs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare overall and hemocompatibility-related outcomes across third-generation centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) versus second-generation axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) and centrifugal-flow HeartWare (HVAD) in routine clinical practice.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter observational cohort of adult LVAD recipients (n = 327: HVAD n = 112, HMII n = 142, HM3 n = 73). Baseline characteristics and perioperative variables were recorded. Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models with HM3 as reference. Hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAE; pump thrombosis, ischemic stroke, major bleeding) were assessed with cumulative incidence functions (Aalen-Johansen) and Fine-Gray competing-risk regression with death as a competing event; the hemocompatibility score (HCS) summarized event burden over follow-up.
resultsHM3 demonstrated superior long-term survival compared with both HMII and HVAD in Kaplan-Meier analyses (log-rank p < 0.001); this advantage persisted in multivariable Cox models. HRAE-free survival was also higher with HM3 on competing-risk analysis, driven by substantially lower pump thrombosis and fewer ischemic strokes relative to HMII and HVAD. Bleeding burden did not differ materially between devices, consistent with a class effect of continuous-flow support. LDH-based hemolysis markers and HCS distributions further favored HM3. Perioperative course and general postoperative complications were otherwise broadly comparable across devices.
conclusionsIn this real-world, multicenter cohort, HM3 was associated with better overall survival and a lower thromboembolic burden than HMII and HVAD, while bleeding risk remained similar. These findings support preferential selection of HM3 when device choice is feasible, and emphasize the need for targeted strategies to mitigate hemostatic complications across all LVADs.
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.