We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Outcomes and Readmissions After Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device: Heartmate II Versus Heartware Ventricular Assist Device.
Transplantation Proceedings 2016 July
INTRODUCTION: Donor organ shortage is still a problem for heart transplantation. Only 10% of patients in waiting list undergo heart transplantation. Over the last 5 years, 2 different continuous flow pumps, the HeartMate II and the HeartWare, have been successful clinically in the alternative treatment of patients with end-stage heart disease.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients underwent left ventricular assist device implantation between 2011 and 2014. Patients were followed on pump support for complications and intraoperative outcomes. Potential device-related complications include infections, bleeding liver dysfunction, renal dysfunction, right ventricular failure, stroke, thromboembolism, gastrointestinal bleeding, and wound infection.
RESULTS: The only preoperative significant difference between groups in the study was age; the Heartmate II group were significantly older than Heartware group. There were no differences in gender, body mass index, or body surface area. The Heartware has a better 1-year survival rate, although the difference was not significant. Patients with Heartmate II had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and driveline infection. The Heartware group had a higher incidence of stroke and pump thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The Heartmate II and Heartware are comparable in most respects such as survival, intraoperative features, and major complications.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients underwent left ventricular assist device implantation between 2011 and 2014. Patients were followed on pump support for complications and intraoperative outcomes. Potential device-related complications include infections, bleeding liver dysfunction, renal dysfunction, right ventricular failure, stroke, thromboembolism, gastrointestinal bleeding, and wound infection.
RESULTS: The only preoperative significant difference between groups in the study was age; the Heartmate II group were significantly older than Heartware group. There were no differences in gender, body mass index, or body surface area. The Heartware has a better 1-year survival rate, although the difference was not significant. Patients with Heartmate II had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and driveline infection. The Heartware group had a higher incidence of stroke and pump thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The Heartmate II and Heartware are comparable in most respects such as survival, intraoperative features, and major complications.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app