Outcomes in Patients With HeartMate3 Versus HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device Implanted as Destination Therapy

BackgroundDonor organ shortage caused a growing interest in mechanical circulatory support not only as a bridge to transplant but also as a destination therapy. Improved results and increased applicability and durability of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have established this treatment option as an alternative for patients with end-stage heart failure.MethodsThe aim of the study was to compare the early results, major complications, and the follow up of all patients undergoing HeartMate3 (HM3) LVAD and HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) system implantation in one of the most experienced Clinic in Poland between 2015 and 2020.ResultsThere were 78 individuals (72 male, 92%; 6 female, 8%), with median age 57 years (range, 50-62 years). Until 2020 we implanted 47 (60%) HVADs and 31 (40%) HM3 LVADs. Patient characteristics were comparable between both groups apart from median left ventricle diameter (8.2 cm [range, 7.4-8.4 cm] in HM3 group vs 7.2 cm [range, 6.7-7.9 cm] in HVAD group; P < .01) The overall survival was 53.2% in the HVAD group and 77.4% in the HM3 group (P =.03). Mean survival time was higher in HM3 group (2.97 years [range, 2.43-3.5 years] vs 2.51 years [range, 1.94-3.08 years]; P < .05). Mean complication-free survival time was also higher in the HM3 group (2.16 years [range, 1.55-2.76] vs 1.61 [range, 1.16-2.06 years]; P < .05), with overall complication-free rate of 54.8% for HM3 vs 29.8% for HVAD (P = .27). Median hospitalization time was comparable (31 days [range, 25-39 days] in the HM3 group vs 32 days [range, 24-38 days] in the HVAD group; P = .49).ConclusionsPatients supported with the HM3 had significantly fewer major complications than HVAD. Moreover, the HVAD was associated with higher mortality.