: 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 (<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 < 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.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the surgical approach on the postoperative outcome in patients who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation after having received veno‐arterial extracorporeal life support (va‐ECLS) using data from a European registry (ECLS‐VAD). Five hundred and thirty‐one patients were included. Methods A propensity score‐adjusted outcome analysis was performed, resulting in 324 patients in the full sternotomy (FS) group and 39 in the less invasive surgery (LIS) group. Results The surgery lasted in median 236 min in the FS group versus 263 min in the LIS group (p = 0.289). The median chest tube output during the first 24 h was similar in both groups. Patients who underwent implantation with an FS required more blood products during the first 24 postoperative hours (median 16 vs. 12, p = 0.033). The incidence of revision due to bleeding was also higher (35.5 vs. 15.4%, p = 0.016). A temporary postoperative right ventricular assist device was necessary in 45.1 (FS) versus 23.1% (LIS) of patients, respectively (p = 0.067). No stroke occurred in the LIS group during the first 30 days after surgery (7.4% in the FS group). The incidence of stroke and of renal, hepatic, and respiratory failure during the follow‐up was similar in both groups. The 30‐day and one‐year survival were similar in both groups. Conclusion LIS for implantation of a durable LVAD in patients on va‐ECLS implanted for cardiogenic shock is associated with less revision due to bleeding, less administration of blood products and absence of perioperative stroke, with no impact on survival.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is a life-saving treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock (CS), but many aspects such as patient selection, initiation threshold and optimal modality selection remain unclear. This study describes a standard operating procedure (SOP) for tMCS allocation for CS patients and presents outcome data before and after implementation. Data from 421 patients treated for CS with tMCS between 2018 and 2021 were analyzed. In 2019, we implemented a new SOP for allocating CS patients to tMCS modalities. The association between the time of SOP implementation and the 30-day and 1-year survival as well as hospital discharge was evaluated. Of the 421 patients included, 189 were treated before (pre-SOP group) and 232 after implementation of the new SOP (SOP group). Causes of CS included acute myocardial infarction (n = 80, 19.0%), acute-on-chronic heart failure in patients with dilated or chronic ischemic heart failure (n = 139, 33.0%), valvular cardiomyopathy (n = 14, 3.3%) and myocarditis (n = 5, 1.2%); 102 patients suffered from postcardiotomy CS (24.2%). The SOP group was further divided into an SOP-adherent (SOP-A) and a non-SOP-adherent group (SOP-NA). The hospital discharge rate was higher in the SOP group (41.7% vs. 29.7%), and treating patients according to the SOP was associated with an improved 30-day survival (56.9% vs. 38.9%, OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.01–4.80, p = 0.044). Patient allocation according to the presented SOP significantly improved 30-day survival.

Mechanical circulatory support has proven effective in managing postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock by stabilizing patients’ hemodynamics and ensuring adequate organ perfusion. Among the available device modalities, the combination of extracorporeal life support and a microaxial flow pump for left ventricular unloading has emerged as a valuable tool in the surgical armamentarium. In this publication, we provide recommendations for the application and weaning of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock patients, derived from a consensus among leading cardiac centers in German-speaking countries.

Background: Circulatory support with a catheter-based microaxial flow pump (mAFP) plays a major role in the treatment of severe cardiogenic shock. In most patients who fail to recover while on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) and who are not eligible for heart transplantation, durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) implantation is usually considered a reliable option. This study aimed to describe the outcome of dLVAD therapy following mAFP support and to identify predictors of mortality. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter registry on patients who underwent dLVAD implantation following tMCS with a mAFP between January 2017 and October 2022 (n = 332) from 19 European centers. Results: Patients were supported with an Impella 5.5 (n = 92), 5.0 (n = 153) or CP (n = 87) and were transitioned to a HeartWare HVAD (n = 128) or Heartmate 3 (n = 204) during the same period. One hundred and twenty-five patients (39.2%) also required extracorporeal life support before and/or during mAFP therapy. The 30-day and 1-year survival were 87.8% and 71.1%, respectively. The following risk factors for 1-year mortality were identified: age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02), specifically age over 55 years (OR, 1.09), body mass index >30 kg/m(2) (OR, 2.2), female sex (OR for male sex, 0.43), elevated total bilirubin (OR, 1.12), and low platelet count (OR, 0.996). Conclusions: Based on the identified risk factors, a risk score for estimating 1-year mortality was calculated to optimize patient selection for dLVAD implantation.