Surgical Outcomes of Centrifugal Continuous-Flow Implantable Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Heartmate 3 versus Heartware Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are widely employed as a therapeutic option for end-stage heart failure. We evaluated the outcomes associated with centrifugal-flow LVAD implantation, comparing 2 device models: the Heartmate 3 (HM3) and the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD).

METHODS

Data were collected from patients who underwent LVAD implantation between June 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022. We analyzed overall survival, first rehospitalization, and early, late, and LVAD-related complications.

RESULTS

In total, 74 patients underwent LVAD implantation, with 42 receiving the HM3 and 32 the HVAD. A mild Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score was more common among HM3 than HVAD recipients (p=0.006), and patients receiving the HM3 exhibited lower rates of preoperative ventilator use (p=0.010) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (p=0.039). The overall early mortality rate was 5.4% (4 of 74 patients), with no significant difference between groups. Regarding early right ventricular (RV) failure, HM3 implantation was associated with a lower rate (13 of 42 [31.0%]) than HVAD implantation (18 of 32 [56.2%], p=0.051). The median rehospitalization-free period was longer for HM3 recipients (16.9 months) than HVAD recipients (5.3 months, p=0.013). Furthermore, HM3 recipients displayed a lower incidence of late hemorrhagic stroke (p=0.016). In the multivariable analysis, preoperative use of continuous renal replacement therapy (odds ratio, 22.31; p=0.002) was the only significant predictor of postoperative RV failure.

CONCLUSION

The LVAD models (HM3 and HVAD) demonstrated comparable overall survival rates. However, the HM3 was associated with a lower risk of late hemorrhagic stroke.