Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Postmarket Experience With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device: 30-Day Outcomes From the ELEVATE Registry

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

Garbade, J, Gustafsson, F, Shaw, S, Lavee, J, Saeed, D, Pya, Y, Krabatsch, T, Schmitto, JD, Morshuis, M, Chuang, J & Zimpfer, D 2019, 'Postmarket Experience With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device: 30-Day Outcomes From the ELEVATE Registry' The Annals of thoracic surgery, bind 107, nr. 1, s. 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.092

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Garbade, Jens ; Gustafsson, Finn ; Shaw, Steven ; Lavee, Jacob ; Saeed, Diyar ; Pya, Yuriy ; Krabatsch, Thomas ; Schmitto, Jan D ; Morshuis, Michiel ; Chuang, Joyce ; Zimpfer, Daniel. / Postmarket Experience With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device : 30-Day Outcomes From the ELEVATE Registry. I: The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2019 ; Bind 107, Nr. 1. s. 33-39.

Bibtex

@article{4d18ae551be84054b413df391a7cc3ad,
title = "Postmarket Experience With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device: 30-Day Outcomes From the ELEVATE Registry",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (Abbott, Chicago, IL) is designed to provide circulatory support with enhanced hemocompatibility for patients with advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes between patients treated during the European Conformity Mark (CE Mark [CEM]) clinical trial and those treated in the postmarket era.METHODS: The prospective, observational, multinational ELEVATE (Evaluating the HeartMate 3 with Full MagLev Technology in a Post-Market Approval Setting) registry includes patients receiving the HeartMate 3 following CEM approval. Outcomes of patients in the ELEVATE registry are compared with patients in the CEM trial.RESULTS: Compared with the CEM trial (N = 50), the ELEVATE registry group (N = 463) was more severely ill, with more patients classified as INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 1 to 2 (32{\%} versus 10{\%}; p < 0.001). The CEM trial group was younger and underwent fewer concomitant valve procedures. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the 30-day survival was comparable between the ELEVATE registry and CEM trial groups (95{\%} versus 98{\%}; p = 0.46). Length of intensive care unit stay was similar between the ELEVATE registry (7 days) and CEM trial (6 days) groups. Most adverse event rates were comparable between the 2 groups. ELEVATE registry patients had a lower rate of cardiac arrhythmias (13{\%} versus 28{\%}; p = 0.009). With increasing experience, the implant technique has evolved to include more versatile approaches such as less invasive and off-pump implantation.CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes for ELEVATE registry patients are comparable despite being sicker than CEM trial patients. Adverse event rates remain low, with no cases of pump thrombosis within the first 30 days. Implant techniques have evolved to include more versatile approaches.",
author = "Jens Garbade and Finn Gustafsson and Steven Shaw and Jacob Lavee and Diyar Saeed and Yuriy Pya and Thomas Krabatsch and Schmitto, {Jan D} and Michiel Morshuis and Joyce Chuang and Daniel Zimpfer",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.092",
language = "English",
volume = "107",
pages = "33--39",
journal = "Annals of Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "0003-4975",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Postmarket Experience With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device

T2 - 30-Day Outcomes From the ELEVATE Registry

AU - Garbade, Jens

AU - Gustafsson, Finn

AU - Shaw, Steven

AU - Lavee, Jacob

AU - Saeed, Diyar

AU - Pya, Yuriy

AU - Krabatsch, Thomas

AU - Schmitto, Jan D

AU - Morshuis, Michiel

AU - Chuang, Joyce

AU - Zimpfer, Daniel

N1 - Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (Abbott, Chicago, IL) is designed to provide circulatory support with enhanced hemocompatibility for patients with advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes between patients treated during the European Conformity Mark (CE Mark [CEM]) clinical trial and those treated in the postmarket era.METHODS: The prospective, observational, multinational ELEVATE (Evaluating the HeartMate 3 with Full MagLev Technology in a Post-Market Approval Setting) registry includes patients receiving the HeartMate 3 following CEM approval. Outcomes of patients in the ELEVATE registry are compared with patients in the CEM trial.RESULTS: Compared with the CEM trial (N = 50), the ELEVATE registry group (N = 463) was more severely ill, with more patients classified as INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 1 to 2 (32% versus 10%; p < 0.001). The CEM trial group was younger and underwent fewer concomitant valve procedures. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the 30-day survival was comparable between the ELEVATE registry and CEM trial groups (95% versus 98%; p = 0.46). Length of intensive care unit stay was similar between the ELEVATE registry (7 days) and CEM trial (6 days) groups. Most adverse event rates were comparable between the 2 groups. ELEVATE registry patients had a lower rate of cardiac arrhythmias (13% versus 28%; p = 0.009). With increasing experience, the implant technique has evolved to include more versatile approaches such as less invasive and off-pump implantation.CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes for ELEVATE registry patients are comparable despite being sicker than CEM trial patients. Adverse event rates remain low, with no cases of pump thrombosis within the first 30 days. Implant techniques have evolved to include more versatile approaches.

AB - BACKGROUND: The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (Abbott, Chicago, IL) is designed to provide circulatory support with enhanced hemocompatibility for patients with advanced heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes between patients treated during the European Conformity Mark (CE Mark [CEM]) clinical trial and those treated in the postmarket era.METHODS: The prospective, observational, multinational ELEVATE (Evaluating the HeartMate 3 with Full MagLev Technology in a Post-Market Approval Setting) registry includes patients receiving the HeartMate 3 following CEM approval. Outcomes of patients in the ELEVATE registry are compared with patients in the CEM trial.RESULTS: Compared with the CEM trial (N = 50), the ELEVATE registry group (N = 463) was more severely ill, with more patients classified as INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 1 to 2 (32% versus 10%; p < 0.001). The CEM trial group was younger and underwent fewer concomitant valve procedures. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the 30-day survival was comparable between the ELEVATE registry and CEM trial groups (95% versus 98%; p = 0.46). Length of intensive care unit stay was similar between the ELEVATE registry (7 days) and CEM trial (6 days) groups. Most adverse event rates were comparable between the 2 groups. ELEVATE registry patients had a lower rate of cardiac arrhythmias (13% versus 28%; p = 0.009). With increasing experience, the implant technique has evolved to include more versatile approaches such as less invasive and off-pump implantation.CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes for ELEVATE registry patients are comparable despite being sicker than CEM trial patients. Adverse event rates remain low, with no cases of pump thrombosis within the first 30 days. Implant techniques have evolved to include more versatile approaches.

U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.092

DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.092

M3 - Journal article

VL - 107

SP - 33

EP - 39

JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

SN - 0003-4975

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 56234728