Search

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 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.

Background Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity‐2 (sST2) predicts mortality in patients with heart failure. The predictive value of sST2 in patients with a left ventricular assist device remains unknown. Therefore, we studied the relationship between sST2 and outcome after left ventricular assist device implantation. Methods and Results sST2 levels of patients with a left ventricular assist device implanted between January 2015 and December 2022 were included in this observational study. The median follow‐up was 25 months, during which 1573 postoperative sST2 levels were measured in 199 patients, with a median of 29 ng/mL. Survival of patients with normal and elevated preoperative levels was compared using Kaplan‐Meier analysis, which did not differ significantly (P=0.22) between both groups. The relationship between postoperative sST2, survival, and right heart failure was evaluated using a joint model, which showed a significant relationship between the absolute sST2 level and mortality, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10–1.130; P

Abstract 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.

Abstract Takotsubo syndrome was featured in various sessions and posters at the recent Heart Failure Congress and World Congress on Acute Heart Failure 2019 held in Athens. The importance and increasing recognition of this acute heart failure syndrome is reflected by the growing activity at Heart Failure Association congresses over the last 8 years. Two dedicated sessions to Takotsubo syndrome with comprehensive lectures from experts in the field and several posters highlighted new scientific progress, important aspects of epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk stratification, and management of the syndrome and discussed gaps in knowledge of this intriguing entity. This paper will summarize the topics discussed in these sessions including the most recent data from large registries, clinical, and pre‐clinical studies presented at the meeting.