Compared to the first EUROMACS report, the number of participating hospitals increased from 21 to 52 (+148%), whereas the number of registered implants more than tripled from 825 to 2947 (+257%). The increase in the number of participating hospitals led us to increase the quality control measures through data input control, on-site audits and statistical analyses.

No abstract

No abstract

ARTICLE ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLEEditorial, see p XXX BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to derive and validate a novel risk score for early right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation. METHODS:The European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) was used to identify adult patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with mainstream devices. Eligible patients (n=2988) were randomly divided into derivation (n=2000) and validation (n=988) cohorts. The primary outcome was early (<30 days) severe postoperative RHF, defined as receiving short-or long-term rightsided circulatory support, continuous inotropic support for ≥14 days, or nitric oxide ventilation for ≥48 hours. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Covariates found to be associated with RHF (exploratory univariate P<0.10) were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model. A risk score was then generated using the relative magnitude of the exponential regression model coefficients of independent predictors at the last step after checking for collinearity, likelihood ratio test, c index, and clinical weight at each step.RESULTS: A 9.5-point risk score incorporating 5 variables (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support class, use of multiple inotropes, severe right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography, ratio of right atrial/ pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, hemoglobin) was created. The mean scores in the derivation and validation cohorts were 2.7±1.9 and 2.6±2.0, respectively (P=0.32). RHF in the derivation cohort occurred in 433 patients (21.7%) after left ventricular assist device implantation and was associated with a lower 1-year (53% versus 71%; P<0.001) and 2-year (45% versus 58%; P<0.001) survival compared with patients without RHF. RHF risk ranged from 11% (low risk score 0-2) to 43.1% (high risk score >4; P<0.0001). Median intensive care unit stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 4-15 days) versus 24 days (interquartile range, 14-38 days) in patients without versus with RHF, respectively (P<0.001). The c index of the composite score was 0.70 in the derivation and 0.67 in the validation cohort. The EUROMACS-RHF risk score outperformed (P<0.0001) previously published scores and known individual echocardiographic and hemodynamic markers of RHF. CONCLUSIONS:This novel EUROMACS-RHF risk score outperformed currently known risk scores and clinical predictors of early postoperative RHF. This novel score may be useful for tailored risk-based clinical assessment and management of patients with advanced HF evaluated for ventricular assist device therapy. 1,2 Early post-LVAD mortality is due partly to the development of right-sided HF (RHF) in the early post-LVAD phase. 3 The pathophysiology of RHF, however, is not well known.4,5 Post-LVAD RHF has been reported to be between 4% and 50%, 6-10 and RHF-associated 6-month mortality was seen in up to 29% of patients ...

OBJECTIVES The HeartWare HVAD (HW) and the HeartMate3 (HM3) are presently the most commonly used continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices worldwide. We compared the outcomes of patients supported with either of these 2 devices based on data from the EUROMACS (European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support). METHODS A retrospective analysis of the survival and complications profile in propensity score-matched adult patients enrolled in the EUROMACS between 01 January 2016 and 01 September 2020 and supported with either an HW or HM3. Matching included demographic parameters, severity of cardiogenic shock and risk-modifying end-organ parameters that impact long-term survival. Survival on device and major postoperative adverse events were analysed. RESULTS Following 1:1 propensity score matching, each group consisted of 361 patients. Patients were well balanced (&lt;0.1 standardized mean difference). The median follow-up was similar in both groups [396 (interquartile range (IQR) 112–771) days for HW and 376 (IQR 100–816) days for HM3]. The 2-year survival was similar in both groups [HW: 61% 95% confidence interval (CI) (56–67%) vs HM3: 68% 95% CI (63–73%) (stratified hazard ratio for mortality: 1.13 95% CI (0.83–1.54), P = 0.435].The cumulative incidence for combined major adverse events and unexpected readmissions was similar in both groups [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 1.0 (0.84–1.21), P = 0.96]. Patients in the HW group demonstrated a higher risk of device malfunction [SHR 2.44 (1.45–3.71), P &lt; 0.001], neurological dysfunction [SHR 1.29 (1.02–1.61), P = 0.032] and intracranial bleeding [SHR 1.76 (1.13–2.70), P = 0.012]. CONCLUSIONS Mid-term survival in both groups was similar in a propensity-matched analysis. The risk of device malfunction, neurological dysfunction and intracranial bleeding was significantly higher in HW patients.