Background Due to anatomic and physiologic concerns, prior generations of the left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have frequently been denied to patients with small body size. However, outcomes in patients with small body surface area (BSA) following HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation remain relatively unknown. Methods A cohort of 220 patients implanted at a single center was divided into two groups: BSA ≤1.8 m2 (small BSA, n = 37) and BSA >1.8 m2 (large BSA, n = 183). We investigated baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including survival and incidence of adverse events. Results Small BSA patients were older (60 vs. 57 years), more likely female (60% vs. 20%), had a lower body mass index (24 vs. 32 kg/m2), lower incidence of diabetes (32% vs. 51%), history of stroke (5% vs. 19%), and left ventricular thrombus (0% vs. 11%). They had smaller left ventricular end diastolic diameter (64.8 vs. 69.3 mm). Pump speed and pump flows at discharge were lower in the small BSA group. Survival at 1 year and 2 years was 86% versus 87% and 86% versus 79% for small versus large BSA groups (p = 0.408), respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar between groups and there were no cases of confirmed pump thrombosis. The incidence of readmissions for low flow alarms was higher in the small BSA group (0.55 vs. 0.24 EPPY). Conclusions These findings demonstrate comparable outcomes in patients with small body size and suggest that this parameter should not be an exclusion criterion on patients who are otherwise candidates for HM3 LVAD implantation.

OBJECTIVES The influence of preoperative left ventricular size in outcomes following centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has not been well characterized. METHODS A cohort of 313 patients who received a centrifugal-flow LVAD at a single institution was analysed. Using a maximally selected log-rank statistic, we investigated whether a left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) cut-off point was associated with worse outcomes. The cohort was then divided in 2 groups based on the LVEDD cut-off point. RESULTS An LVEDD cut-off point of 59 mm was found to predict worse survival. Smaller LVEDD patients (≤59 mm, N = 52) were older and more likely to have a history of coronary artery disease compared those with a larger LVEDD (>59 mm, N = 261). Smaller LVEDD patients had lower survival compared to larger LVEDD patients (71% vs 85% at 1 year and 58% vs 80% at 2 years, P = 0.003). The need for temporary right ventricular mechanical support was significantly higher in the smaller LVEDD cohort (11.5% vs 1.9%, P = 0.002). Pump flows at time of discharge were lower in the smaller LVEDD group (3.8 vs 4.2 l/min, P = 0.005), who also had a higher incidence of late right ventricular failure (23% vs 12%, P = 0.02), higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (0.416 vs 0.256 events per patient-year, P = 0.025) and higher readmissions secondary to low flow alarms (0.429 vs 0.240 events per patient-year, P = 0.007). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that smaller LVEDD, older age, high BUN and high bilirubin levels were independent predictors of worse survival. CONCLUSIONS In patients receiving a centrifugal-flow LVAD, smaller preoperative LVEDD (≤59 mm) was associated with lower survival and higher incidence of adverse outcomes.