The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician -ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists -to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES In this study, we aimed to determine the comparative outcomes of patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs): HeartMate 2 (HM2), HeartWare (HW) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) in a real-world setting. METHODS The study was an investigator-initiated comparative retrospective analysis of patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institution between 2008 and 2017. The follow-up duration was 18 months after implantation. RESULTS The study included 105 continuous-flow LVAD-supported patients of whom 51% (n = 54), 24% (25) and 25% (26) underwent implantation of HM2, HW and HM3, respectively. During follow-up, patients who were supported with HM3 versus either HM2 or HW LVADs demonstrated a lower risk of stroke (0% vs 26%, P < 0.001 and 0% vs 40%, P < 0.001, respectively) and lower rates of thrombosis (0% vs 31%, P < 0.001 and 0% vs 12%, P < 0.001, respectively), findings that were consistent with their calculated haemocompatibility scores (cumulative score 5, 89 and 56 for HM3, HM2 and HW, respectively, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients supported with HM3 versus HW had fewer unplanned hospitalizations [median 1 (25th–75th interquartile range 0–2) vs 3 (interquartile range 2–4), P = 0.012]. Importantly, survival free from stroke or device exchange was higher in patients supported with HM3 compared with either the HM2 or the HW LVADs [hazard ratio (HR) 2.77, confidence interval (CI) 1.13–6.78; P = 0.026 and HR 2.70, CI 1.01–7.20; P = 0.047, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS HM3 device currently presents better prognostic and adverse events profiles when compared with the HM2 or the HW LVADs. A larger-scale head-to-head comparison between the devices is warranted in order to confirm our findings.