Identifying patients at risk: multi-centre comparison of HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices

Lieke Numan, Daniel Zimpfer, Osnat Itzhaki Ben Zadok, Emmeke Aarts, Michiel Morshuis, Sabina P.W. Guenther, Julia Riebandt, Dominik Wiedemann, Faiz Z. Ramjankhan, Anne Marie Oppelaar, Tuvia Ben-Gal, Binyamin Ben-Avraham, Folkert W. Asselbergs*, Rene Schramm, Linda W. Van Laake

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aims: Since the withdrawal of HeartWare (HVAD) from the global market, there is an ongoing discussion if and which patients require prophylactically exchange for a HeartMate 3 (HM3). Therefore, it is important to study outcome differences between HVAD and HM3 patients. Because centres differ in patient selection and standard of care, we performed a propensity score (PS)-based study including centres that implanted both devices and aimed to identify which HVAD patients are at highest risk. Methods and results: We performed an international multi-centre study (n = 1021) including centres that implanted HVAD and HM3. PS-matching was performed using clinical variables and the implanting centre. Survival and complications were compared. As a sensitivity analysis, PS-adjusted Cox regression was performed. Landmark analysis with conditional survival >2 years was conducted to evaluate long-term survival differences. To identify which HVAD patients may benefit from a HM3 upgrade, Cox regression using pre-operative variables and their interaction with device type was performed. Survival was significantly better for HM3 patients (P < 0.01) in 458 matched patients, with a median follow-up of 23 months. Within the matched cohort, HM3 patients had a median age of 58 years, and 83% were male, 80% of the HVAD patients were male, with a median age of 59 years. PS-adjusted Cox regression confirmed a significantly better survival for HM3 patients when compared with HVAD, with a HR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.14–1.85, P < 0.01). Pump thrombosis (P < 0.01) and ischaemic stroke (P < 0.01) occurred less in HM3 patients. No difference was found for haemorrhagic stroke, right heart failure, driveline infection, and major bleeding. Landmark-analysis confirmed a significant difference in conditional survival >2 years after implantation (P = 0.03). None of the pre-operative variable interactions in the Cox regression were significant. Conclusions: HM3 patients have a significantly better survival and a lower incidence of ischaemic strokes and pump thrombosis than HVAD patients. This survival difference persisted after 2 years of implantation. Additional research using post-operative variables is warranted to identify which HVAD patients need an upgrade to HM3 or expedited transplantation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1656-1665
Number of pages10
JournalESC heart failure
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2023

Funding

FundersFunder number
Health-Holland
LVADLSHM19035
Abbott Laboratories
Medtronic
Health~Holland

    Keywords

    • Centrifugal continuous flow pump
    • End-stage heart failure
    • LVAD
    • Left ventricular assist device
    • Mechanical circulatory support

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Identifying patients at risk: multi-centre comparison of HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this