Novacor left ventricular assist system versus heartmate vented electric left ventricular assist system as a long-term mechanical circulatory support device in bridging patients: A prospective study

Abstract

Most patients had organ recovery with left ventricular assist system support, and a considerable number of patients in both groups underwent transplantation. However, both devices need revision to address the current problems, that is, thromboembolism for the Novacor device and infection and reliability for the HeartMate device.

Evaluation of Cardiac Function after VAD Implantation

“…Over 3000 patients have had a Heartmate II implanted and is the most widely used second-generation device. The mean duration of support reported for these continuous flow, rotary pumps is longer compared with the first-generation devices (166-236 vs. 50-60 days) (El-Banayosy et al, 2000). The incidence of thrombo-embolic events in HeartMate II patients is in most studies comparable with the Heart-Mate I with annual ischemic stroke rates ranging from 3 to 6% and for transient ischemic attacks from 1 to 4% (Strüber et al, 2008).…”

Ventricular Assist Device: Emerging Modality for Long Term Cardiac Support

“…However, in the majority of studies, the maximal support duration does not exceed 6 months, and in most studies mean support duration ranges only from 50 to 60 days. [17][18][19] Results in experienced high volume centers (>10 implants per year) tend to be better than in low-volume centers. Survival and quality of life has been closely related to adverse events such as bleeding, infections, thrombo-embolic events and technical failures.…”

Cost–effectiveness of left ventricular-assist devices in end-stage heart failure

“…Seven of the studies of first-generation LVADs investigated the use of the HeartMate IP and/or VE devices, with one CCT, 80 three retrospective cohort analytical studies [81][82][83] and three cohort studies, either before and after 84 or compared with a historical control group. 85,86 Of the six studies comparing the use of the HeartMate LVADs with an alternative intervention, one study compared the HeartMate VE LVAD with the Novacor N100 LVAD, 80 two studies used inotropic agents as the comparator 82,83 and three studies did not define the medical care given to the control group. 81,85,86 The other studies of first-generation LVADs were a cohort analytic study comparing the short-and long-term use of the Novacor LVAD, 87 a case series of the Toyobo LVAD, 88 and two case reports of the Thoratec device.…”

“…One study, a CCT comparing the HeartMate VE and Novacor N100 LVADs, had a moderate risk of allocation bias as it used an alternative procedure for allocating people. 80 The other six studies used a cohort design with nonrandomised allocation of patients to the groups included in the studies, providing the opportunity for allocation bias. The risk of selection bias and confounding was particularly high in five of the studies, [81][82][83]85,86 a consequence of either the poor reporting of patient characteristics or the imbalance in the characteristics of the different groups.…”

“…Although the CCT comparing the HeartMate and Novacor LVADs had a high risk of selection bias owing to the limited information provided on patient selection, there appeared to be no major differences between the groups limiting the possible effects of confounding. 80 The study by Grady and colleagues 84 provides information on the selection of participants limiting the opportunity for selection bias. As a before and after cohort study, the effects of confounding were not assessed.…”