Aims Centrifugal continuous flow pumps are currently the state of the art in left ventricular assist device therapy. This study was conducted to compare the results after implantation of the HVAD® and the HeartMate 3®. Methods and results We retrospectively analysed preoperative and post-operative patient data of all 106 patients, who received a HeartMate 3 (HM3) at our centre between 2014 and 2018. A total of 392 patients receiving a sintered HVAD® served as controls. Patient matching was performed for age, sex, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support level at the time of implant, perioperative right heart failure, and implantation strategy, that is, bridge to transplant or destination therapy, as well as preoperative renal function, that is, as indicated by serum creatinine levels. A total of 79 matched pairs could be identified. During a median follow-up of 15.3 months (range: 0-30 months), 23 (29.1%) and 19 (24.1%) patients died in the HVAD and HM3 groups, respectively, with a hazard ratio for mortality of 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-1.54; P = 0.568]. Freedom from cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly between study groups, with a hazard ratio of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.23-1.45; P = 0.241). The risk of driveline infection was significantly lower in the HM3 (n = 33) than in the HVAD (n = 55) group (hazard ratio = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35-0.84; P = 0.006). Eight HVAD, but no HM3, patients developed a pump thrombosis during follow-up (P = 0.148). Conclusions Performance of both currently used centrifugal left ventricular assist device systems is comparable in terms of short-term patient survival and freedom from cerebrovascular events. In our single-centre experience, HM3 patients less frequently develop driveline infections and no pump thrombosis, which requires further evaluation.

The development of RV failure in LVAD recipients is a serious problem associated with high mortality. Temporary RV mechanical support is an acceptable way to manage postoperative RV failure in these severely ill LVAD recipients.

Summary Mechanical circulatory support gained a significant value in the armamentarium of heart failure therapy because of the increased awareness of the prevalence of heart failure and the tremendous advances in the field of mechanical circulatory support during the last decades. Current device technologies already complement a heart transplant as the gold standard of treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure refractory to conservative medical therapy. This article reviews important aspects of mechanical circulatory support therapy and focuses on currently debated issues.

In patients with HIT antibodies, low-dose bivalirudin anticoagulation on ECLS support appears to be a feasible option for left ventricular assist device implantation.

In patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants, pump thrombosis is a potential life-threatening complication. In a retrospective data analysis, we compared clinical outcomes in 50 patients with HeartWare (HW) or HeartMate II implants undergoing device exchange (DEx; n = 21) or systemic thrombolysis (STL; n = 29) for pump thrombosis. Primary end-point was survival up to 90 days postintervention. Secondary end-points were the need for blood products postintervention, duration of intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay, 90 day and 2 year therapy failure (the need for additional surgical or nonsurgical intervention because of pump thrombosis), and 2 year survival. Ninety-day survival was 89.3% in the STL group and 91.0% in the DEx group (p = 0.901). Compared with the DEx group, the average use of different blood products was lower (p < 0.001), and duration of intensive care unit stay and in-hospital stay tended to be shorter in the STL group (p values = 0.086 and 0.048, respectively). However, 90 day freedom from therapy failure was significantly lower in the STL group than in the DEx exchange group (p = 0.027) and so was 2 year freedom from therapy failure (p = 0.006). Two-year survival was comparable between groups (p = 0.267). Our data indicate that STL can be considered as a therapeutic option in LVAD patients with pump thrombosis. ASAIO Journal 2016; 62:246-251.