Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Analysis of Outcomes in Patients with HeartMate 3 with and Without Right Ventricular Assist Device Support
Main findingResult — go to the resultAdjusted hazard ratio 32.4 95% CI 9.51–110Authors' conclusion
In this large single-centre experience, patients undergoing HM3 LVAD requiring tRVAD support had significantly higher risks of adverse clinical outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing primary HeartMate 3 LVAD implantation, 2018–202251 (26%) required temporary right ventricular assist device (tRVAD)
- Participants
- 192 patients
- Exposure
- HM3 LVAD with tRVAD support vs HM3 alone
- tRVADn = 51
- Outcome
- All-cause mortality (competing risk analysis, heart transplantation as competing event)
- Follow-up
- 1 year after HM3 implantation
Methodological detailssingle-centre, competing risk analysis, matched cohort analysis
- Single-centre
- Competing risk analysis
- Matched cohort analysis
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted hazard ratio
32.4
95% CI 9.51–110
P < 0.0001
By group
tRVADvs HM3 alone
adjusted HR 32.4 (95% CI 9.51–110); P < 0.0001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
In-hospital mortality
P < 0.0001
Safety
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| StrokeMatched cohort analysis | 5.75 (1.55–21.3) | P = 0.009 | |
| DialysisMatched cohort analysis | 13.4 (3.96–45.5) | P < 0.0001 | |
| 0.050.21520Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Adverse events, delayed vs concomitant tRVAD
- Delayed tRVAD did not have a significantly higher risk of adverse events than concomitant tRVAD
Original publication
Analysis of Outcomes in Patients with HeartMate 3 with and Without Right Ventricular Assist Device Support. ESC Heart Fail. Published 25 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →