Numan, L; Ramjankhan, FZ; Oberski, DL; Oerlemans, MIFJ; Aarts, E; Gianoli, M; Van Der Heijden, JJ; ... Van Laake, LW; + view all Numan, L; Ramjankhan, FZ; Oberski, DL; Oerlemans, MIFJ; Aarts, E; Gianoli, M; Van Der Heijden, JJ; De Jonge, N; Van Der Kaaij, NP; Meuwese, CL; Mokhles, MM; Oppelaar, AM; De Waal, EEC; Asselbergs, FW; Van Laake, LW; - view fewer (2021) Propensity score-based analysis of long-term outcome of patients on HeartWare and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support. ESC Heart Failure 10.1002/ehf2.13267. (In press).

Preview

Text Asselbergs_Propensity score‐based analysis of long‐term outcome of patients on HeartWare and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support_AOP.pdf - Published Version Download (678kB) | Preview

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: AIMS: Left ventricular assist device therapy has become the cornerstone in the treatment of end‐stage heart failure and is increasingly used as destination therapy next to bridge to transplant or recovery. HeartMate 3 (HM3) and HeartWare (HVAD) are centrifugal continuous flow devices implanted intrapericardially and most commonly used worldwide. No randomized controlled trials have been performed yet. Analysis based on large registries may be considered as the best alternative but has the disadvantage of different standard of care between centres and missing data. Bias is introduced, because the decision which device to use was not random, even more so because many centres use only one type of left ventricular assist device. Therefore, we performed a propensity score (PS)‐based analysis of long‐term clinical outcome of patients that received HM3 or HVAD in a single centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between December 2010 and December 2019, 100 patients received HVAD and 81 patients HM3 as primary implantation at the University Medical Centre Utrecht. We performed PS matching with an extensive set of covariates, resulting in 112 matched patients with a median follow‐up of 28 months. After PS matching, survival was not significantly different (P = 0.21) but was better for HM3. The cumulative incidences for haemorrhagic stroke (P = 0.01) and pump thrombosis (P = 0.02) were significantly higher for HVAD patients. The cumulative incidences for major bleeding, ischaemic stroke, right heart failure, and driveline infection were not different between the groups. We found no interaction between the surgeon who performed the implantation and survival (P = 0.59, P = 0.78, and P = 0.89). Sensitivity analysis was performed, by PS matching without patients on preoperative temporary support resulting in 74 matched patients. This also resulted in a non‐significant difference in survival (P = 0.07). The PS‐adjusted Cox regression showed a worse but non‐significant (P = 0.10) survival for HVAD patients with hazard ratio 1.71 (95% confidence interval 0.91–3.24). CONCLUSIONS: Survival was not significantly different between both groups after PS matching, but was better for HM3, with a significantly lower incidence of haemorrhagic stroke and pump thrombosis for HM3. These results need to be interpreted carefully, because matching may have introduced greater imbalance on unmeasured covariates. A multicentre approach of carefully selected centres is recommended to enlarge the number of matched patients.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVJSONXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item