OBJECTIVES Various trials have assessed the outcome and reliability of the HeartWare HVAD (HW) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist devices. A direct comparison of clinical outcomes and of the complication profile of these 2 left ventricular assist devices is lacking. We present a retrospective analysis of patients supported with HM3 and HW as a left ventricular assist device. METHODS Preoperative data, complications and outcomes including a 1-year follow-up of patients supported with the HM3 and HW in a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Both pumps were implanted on- or off-pump, employing standard and minimally invasive techniques. For logistic reasons, the 2 device types were implanted in an alternating manner, thereby reducing the systematic bias for pump selection. We considered this to be an appropriate approach, as no differences in respect of survival or the complication profile of the two device types have been demonstrated. Anticoagulation was similar in patients with both pumps according to our anticoagulation protocol, with a target international normalized ratio of 2.5–3.0, a home monitoring system and blood pressure management with a mean arterial target pressure of 70–80 mmHg. RESULTS Between October 2015 and April 2017, 100 patients underwent implantation of the HW and 100 patients underwent implantation of the HM3. The median time on the device was 0.98 years (range 0–2.23 years). The median age was 58.5 (51–65) versus 57 (49–64) years (P = 0.456); the number of male patients was 87 versus 88 (P = 0.831). Of the HW patients, 73% were rated as having an INTERMACS level I or II, compared to 57% of the HM3 patients (P = 0.018). There were no further differences in preoperative data. A total of 14 patients had pre-, intra- or post-pump blood flow obstruction in the HW group versus 4 in the HM3 group [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5 (0.7–8.8), P = 0.103]. There were no differences regarding gastrointestinal bleeding [HR 1.25 (0.56–2.64), P = 0.624] or driveline infection (0.68 vs 0.8 events per patient-year, P = 0.0789). The incidence of ischaemic stroke was similar in both groups [HR 0.72 (0.25–2.09), P = 0.550]. Cerebral bleeding was more frequent in patients supported with HW [HR 6.79 (1.43–32.20), P = 0.016]. The incidence of cerebrovascular accidents, on the other hand, was similar in both groups [HR 1.85 (0.83–4.19), P = 0.13]. The incidence of haemocompatibility-related adverse events, however, was significantly higher in the HW group (113 points corresponding to 1.28 events per patient-year versus 69 points corresponding to 0.7 events per patient-year, P < 0.001). The 1-year survival was similar in both groups [62.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.53–0.73) vs 66.7%, 95% CI (0.58–0.767), P = 0.372]. CONCLUSIONS Our data show that the complication profile differs between the 2 pumps, but that early survival is comparable.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) offers a valuable option for treatment of refractory heart failure. We present our experience with selected MCS devices in cardiogenic shock of different etiologies. Methods: We retrospectively studied patients who were treated in our institution between 01/2016 and 07/2018. Patients receiving only veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support were excluded. Left ventricular support patients received Impella; right ventricular support was conducted using Levitronix CentriMag. Results: Thirty-seven patients received an Impella left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Etiology was: acute on chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICMP; n=12), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; n=11), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCMP; n=7) and toxic cardiomyopathy (TCMP; n=2). Two patients presented with postcardiotomy shock and acute myocarditis, respectively. In one case, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was diagnosed. Impella was used solely in 28 patients (Impella group) with an in-hospital survival of 37%. In nine patients, Impella was used in combination with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) implantation (ECMELLA group)-in-hospital survival was 33%. In the Impella group six patients recovered, six received a long-term VAD and 16 died on device. In the ECMELLA group one patient recovered, three received a long-term VAD and five died. The majority of CentriMag implantations as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) were necessary after LVAD implantation (n=52); of these patients, 14 recovered, eight received long-term VAD and 30 died. The remaining 17 patients were supported by RVAD due to AMI (n=7); postcardiotomy (n=7); right heart failure after heart transplantation (n=2) and ICMP (n=1). Six of these patients recovered, two required long-term VAD and nine died. Conclusions: Survival after MCS implantation for left as well as right heart failure in cardiogenic shock remains low, but is superior to that of patients without mechanical support. Short-term MCS remains an option of choice if right, left or biventricular support is needed.

No abstract

No abstract