A network meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies on left ventricular assist devices in adult patients with end-stage heart failure
- 17 August 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
- Vol. 55 (3), 461-467
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy285
Abstract
The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is an approved treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Several devices have been developed over the years, including 2 newer ones (HeartMate 3 and HeartWare), but an overall comparative analysis has never been performed. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized trials on LVAD for adults with end-stage heart failure. Pertinent studies were searched in several databases. Selected outcomes were extracted, including death, stroke and bleeding. Incident relative risks were computed with network meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-scores (with highest values indicating the best therapy). Four randomized clinical trials and 4 observational studies were identified, totalling 2248 patients. Using HeartMate XVE/VE as the benchmark, all LVADs provided a significant better outcome for survival rate in comparison with medical therapy, without significant differences among newer LVADs. The relative risk for death was 0.79 (95% 0.60–1.04; P-score 0.89) for HeartMate II, 0.85 (95% CI 0.62–1.17; P-score 0.64) for HeartWare, 0.88 (95% CI 0.59–1.31; P-score 0.60) for HeartMate 3 and 1.48 (95% CI 1.21–1.80; P-score 0.01) for medical management. While appraising other outcomes, new generation devices (HeartMate 3 and HeartWare) proved better than older generation devices for bleeding, device thrombosis, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, respiratory dysfunction, right ventricular failure and sepsis with significant differences among them. In the management of end-stage heart failure, LVADs provided significant improvement in terms of survival rate compared to medical therapy, but no significant differences exist among LVADs. Despite the reduction of adverse events over time, further technological refinements will be crucial to improve this technology to better address decision-making and to improve clinical outcomes.Keywords
Funding Information
- Sapienza University of Rome (43780/2016 to E.C.)
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Terminal heart failureCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 2014
- Unexpected Abrupt Increase in Left Ventricular Assist Device ThrombosisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Magnitude and Time Course of Changes Induced by Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Unloading in Chronic Heart FailureJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013
- Cognitive-behavioural interventions for children who have been sexually abusedEmergencias, 2012
- Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classificationThe Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 2010
- Advanced Heart Failure Treated with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist DeviceThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent TrialsCirculation, 2007
- Epicardial Real-Time Three-Dimensional Echocardiography in Cardiac Surgery: A Preliminary ExperienceThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2006
- Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Permanent Heart Failure TherapyAnnals of Surgery, 2003
- Long-Term Use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device for End-Stage Heart FailureThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2001