In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.

This content is currently on FREE ACCESS, enjoy another 80 days of free consultation


Mid-term comparison of clinical outcomes between continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

Session Poster Session 6

Speaker Osnat Itzhaki Ben Zadok

Congress : ESC Congress 2019

  • Topic : heart failure
  • Sub-topic : Ventricular Assist Devices
  • Session type : Poster Session
  • FP Number : P5427

Authors : O Itzhaki Ben Zadok (Petah Tikva,IL), B Ben-Avraham (Petah Tikva,IL), A Shaul (Petah Tikva,IL), Y Hammer (Petah Tikva,IL), V Rubachevski (Petah Tikva,IL), I Baruch (Petah Tikva,IL), D Aravot (Petah Tikva,IL), R Kornowski (Petah Tikva,IL), T Ben Gal (Petah Tikva,IL)

O Itzhaki Ben Zadok1 , B Ben-Avraham1 , A Shaul1 , Y Hammer1 , V Rubachevski2 , I Baruch2 , D Aravot2 , R Kornowski1 , T Ben Gal1 , 1Rabin Medical Center, Department of Cardiology - Petah Tikva - Israel , 2Rabin Medical Center, Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery - Petah Tikva - Israel ,


Background: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (cf-LVADs) are increasingly applied in patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Comparative data regarding cf-LVADs are lacking. We aim to determine the outcomes of patients supported with HeartMate 2 (HM2), HeartWare (HW) and HeartMate 3 (HM3).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent cf-LVAD implantation at our institution between 2008-2017. Follow-up duration was 18 months post implantation.

Results: Included were 105 cf-LVAD-supported patients of whom 51% (n=54), 24% (25) and 25% (26) underwent implantation of HM2, HW and HM3, respectively. Patients supported with HM3 versus HM2 had lower risk of thrombosis (0% vs. 37%, p=0<0.001), while patients supported with HM3 versus HW had lower risk of non-GI bleeding (15% vs. 46%, HR 0.28, CI 0.095, 0.85, p=0.024) and reduced unplanned hospitalizations (median 1 (interquartile range 0, 3) vs. 3 (interquartile range 2, 11), p=0.001). Patients supported with HM3 had a reduced risk of stroke compared with either HM2 or HW (0% vs. 26%, p=0.033 and 0% vs. 42%, p=0.005, respectively). Importantly, survival free from stroke or device exchange was higher in patients with HM3 compared to patients supported with either HM2 or HW (100% vs. 72%, p=0.029 and 100% vs. 56%, p=0.003, respectively) (Figure).

Conclusions: HM3 device presents the best currently available prognostic and adverse events profile when compared to HM2 and HW. We believe that HM3 should be offered as the device of choice for mechanically-supported advanced HF patients

Based on your interests

Members get more

Join now
  • 1ESC Professional Members – access all resources from ESC Congress and ESC Asia with APSC & AFC
  • 2ESC Association Members (Ivory, Silver, Gold) – access your Association’s congress resources
  • 3Under 40 or in training - with a Combined Membership, access resources from all congresses
Join now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Novartis Pharma AG and Vifor Pharma in the form of educational grants. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are