Literature DB >> 31609791

Comparison of Neurologic Event Rates Among HeartMate II, HeartMate 3, and HVAD.

Song Li1, Jennifer A Beckman1, Richard Cheng1, Chinwe Ibeh2, Claire J Creutzfeldt2, Jason Bjelkengren1, Joni Herrington2, April Stempien-Otero1, Shin Lin1, Wayne C Levy1, Daniel Fishbein1, Kevin J Koomalsingh3, Daniel Zimpfer4, Mark S Slaughter5, Alberto Aliseda6, David Tirschwell2, Claudius Mahr1.   

Abstract

Strokes remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs). Varying study populations, event definitions, and reporting methods make direct comparison of neurologic event risk across clinical trials and registries challenging. We aim to highlight important differences among major VAD studies and standardize rates of neurologic events to facilitate a comprehensive and objective comparison. We systematically identified and analyzed key clinical trials and registries evaluating the HeartMate II (HMII), HeartMate 3 (HM3), and HVAD devices. Reported neurologic events were nonexclusively categorized into ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, disabling stroke, fatal stroke, and other neurologic events per the studies' definitions. Event rates were standardized to events per patient-year (EPPY) and freedom from event formats. Seven key clinical trials and registries were included in our analysis. There is significant variation and overlap in neurologic event rates for the three VAD platforms across clinical trials (all neurologic events [EPPY]: HM3 0.17-0.21; HMII 0.19-0.26; HVAD 0.16-0.28). None performs consistently better for all types of neurologic events. Furthermore, stroke rates among VAD trials correlated with baseline stroke risk factors including ischemic etiology, history of atrial fibrillation, and history of prior stroke.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31609791     DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ASAIO J        ISSN: 1058-2916            Impact factor:   2.872


  5 in total

1.  Is this the right MOMENTUM?-evidence from a HeartMate 3 randomized trial.

Authors:  Silvia Mariani; Anamika Chatterjee; Jasmin S Hanke; Katharina Homann; Günes Dogan; Axel Haverich; Jan D Schmitto
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Influence of shear rate and surface chemistry on thrombus formation in micro-crevice.

Authors:  Mansur Zhussupbekov; Wei-Tao Wu; Megan A Jamiolkowski; Mehrdad Massoudi; James F Antaki
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  The influence of left ventricular assist device inflow cannula position on thrombosis risk.

Authors:  Mojgan Ghodrati; Alexander Maurer; Thomas Schlöglhofer; Thananya Khienwad; Daniel Zimpfer; Dietrich Beitzke; Francesco Zonta; Francesco Moscato; Heinrich Schima; Philipp Aigner
Journal:  Artif Organs       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.094

Review 4.  The dominant left ventricular assist device: lessons from an era.

Authors:  Amit Alam; Gregory P Milligan; Timothy Gong
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2021-09-10

5.  When Nothing Goes Right: Risk Factors and Biomarkers of Right Heart Failure after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Authors:  Thomas Schlöglhofer; Franziska Wittmann; Robert Paus; Julia Riebandt; Anne-Kristin Schaefer; Philipp Angleitner; Marcus Granegger; Philipp Aigner; Dominik Wiedemann; Günther Laufer; Heinrich Schima; Daniel Zimpfer
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-20
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.