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

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.

Propensity score-based analysis of long-term outcome of patients on HeartWare and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support

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.

Comparing short-term outcome after implantation of the HeartWare® HVAD® and the Abbott® HeartMate 3®

AIMS

Centrifugal continuous flow pumps are currently the state of the art in left ventricular assist device therapy. This study was conducted to compare the results after implantation of the HVAD® and the HeartMate 3®.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analysed preoperative and post-operative patient data of all 106 patients, who received a HeartMate 3 (HM3) at our centre between 2014 and 2018. A total of 392 patients receiving a sintered HVAD® served as controls. Patient matching was performed for age, sex, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support level at the time of implant, perioperative right heart failure, and implantation strategy, that is, bridge to transplant or destination therapy, as well as preoperative renal function, that is, as indicated by serum creatinine levels. A total of 79 matched pairs could be identified. During a median follow-up of 15.3 months (range: 0-30 months), 23 (29.1%) and 19 (24.1%) patients died in the HVAD and HM3 groups, respectively, with a hazard ratio for mortality of 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-1.54; P = 0.568]. Freedom from cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between study groups, with a hazard ratio of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.23-1.45; P = 0.241). The risk of driveline infection was significantly lower in the HM3 (n = 33) than in the HVAD (n = 55) group (hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35-0.84; P = 0.006). Eight HVAD, but no HM3, patients developed a pump thrombosis during follow-up (P = 0.148).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of both currently used centrifugal left ventricular assist device systems is comparable in terms of short-term patient survival and freedom from cerebrovascular events. In our single-centre experience, HM3 patients less frequently develop driveline infections and no pump thrombosis, which requires further evaluation.