Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Echocardiographic Haemodynamic Monitoring in the Context of HeartMate 3™ Therapy: A Systematic Review
Authors' conclusion
Aortic regurgitation still seems to be a prevalent and potentially significant finding.
Study context
- Population
- Patients on HeartMate 3 (HM3) durable mechanical circulatory support9 studies
- Outcome
- Valvular regurgitation and RV dysfunction prevalence
- Follow-up
- ≈12 months of support
Methodological detailsPRISMA 2020, Searches August 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, 8 cohort studies and 1 cross-sectional study, Quality: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies, PCAI for cross-sectional studies
- PRISMA 2020
- Searches August 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar
- 8 cohort studies and 1 cross-sectional study
- Quality: NOS for cohort studies, PCAI for cross-sectional studies
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Aortic regurgitation (AR) prevalence (n = 3 studies; heterogeneity)
33.5%
Δ 33%
Mitral regurgitation (MR) prevalence (2 studies; good consistency; no significant change over time)
15.0%
Δ 0.8%
Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) prevalence (n = 2 studies; fair consistency; statistically un-confirmed trend of increase over time)
28.5%
Δ 8.3%
Further pooled results
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Death and HF readmission, significant ARvs none (one study)Cumulative incidence | 3.42 (1.48–8.76) | |
| 0.10.31310Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Survival free from heart failure (HF) readmission, worsening AR (second study)
| HR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Worsening AR59% vs. 89% | 5.18 (1.07–25.0) | P = 0.023 | |
| 0.050.21520Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Cardiac- and non-cardiac-related hospitalizations by AR (third study) · 12 months follow-up
- No differences
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →