Aims Left ventricular assist device therapy has become the cornerstone in the treatment of end-stage heart failure and is increasingly used as destination therapy next to bridge to transplant or recovery. HeartMate 3 (HM3) and HeartWare (HVAD) are centrifugal continuous flow devices implanted intrapericardially and most commonly used worldwide. No randomized controlled trials have been performed yet. Analysis based on large registries may be considered as the best alternative but has the disadvantage of different standard of care between centres and missing data. Bias is introduced, because the decision which device to use was not random, even more so because many centres use only one type of left ventricular assist device. Therefore, we performed a propensity score (PS)-based analysis of long-term clinical outcome of patients that received HM3 or HVAD in a single centre. Methods and results Between December 2010 and December 2019, 100 patients received HVAD and 81 patients HM3 as primary implantation at the University Medical Centre Utrecht. We performed PS matching with an extensive set of covariates, resulting in 112 matched patients with a median follow-up of 28 months. After PS matching, survival was not significantly different (P = 0.21) but was better for HM3. The cumulative incidences for haemorrhagic stroke (P = 0.01) and pump thrombosis (P = 0.02) were significantly higher for HVAD patients. The cumulative incidences for major bleeding, ischaemic stroke, right heart failure, and driveline infection were not different between the groups. We found no interaction between the surgeon who performed the implantation and survival (P = 0.59, P = 0.78, and P = 0.89). Sensitivity analysis was performed, by PS matching without patients on preoperative temporary support resulting in 74 matched patients. This also resulted in a non-significant difference in survival (P = 0.07). The PS-adjusted Cox regression showed a worse but non-significant (P = 0.10) survival for HVAD patients with hazard ratio 1.71 (95% confidence interval 0.91-3.24). Conclusions Survival was not significantly different between both groups after PS matching, but was better for HM3, with a significantly lower incidence of haemorrhagic stroke and pump thrombosis for HM3. These results need to be interpreted carefully, because matching may have introduced greater imbalance on unmeasured covariates. A multicentre approach of carefully selected centres is recommended to enlarge the number of matched patients.

BackgroundEuropean surgeons were the first worldwide to use robotic techniques in cardiac surgery and major steps in procedure development were taken in Europe. After a hype in the early 2000s case numbers decreased but due to technological improvements renewed interest can be noted. We assessed the current activities and outcomes in robotically assisted cardiac surgery on the European continent.MethodsData were collected in an international anonymized registry of 26 European centers with a robotic cardiac surgery program.ResultsDuring a 4-year period (2016–2019), 2,563 procedures were carried out [30.0% female, 58.5 (15.4) years old, EuroSCORE II 1.56 (1.74)], including robotically assisted coronary bypass grafting (n = 1266, 49.4%), robotic mitral or tricuspid valve surgery (n = 945, 36.9%), isolated atrial septal defect closure (n = 225, 8.8%), left atrial myxoma resection (n = 54, 2.1%), and other procedures (n = 73, 2.8%). The number of procedures doubled during the study period (from n = 435 in 2016 to n = 923 in 2019). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time in pump assisted cases was 148.6 (63.5) min and the myocardial ischemic time was 88.7 (46.1) min. Conversion to larger thoracic incisions was required in 56 cases (2.2%). Perioperative rates of revision for bleeding, stroke, and mortality were 56 (2.2%), 6 (0.2 %), and 27 (1.1%), respectively. Median postoperative hospital length of stay was 6.6 (6.6) days.ConclusionRobotic cardiac surgery case numbers in Europe are growing fast, including a large spectrum of procedures. Conversion rates are low and clinical outcomes are favorable, indicating safe conduct of these high-tech minimally invasive procedures.

No abstract

No abstract