SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Heart-Assist Devices”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition and Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: Primary Results of the ENVAD-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of heart failure-specific therapies in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients is unclear, and observational data suggest improved outcomes with neurohormonal blockers. OBJECTIVES: ENVAD-HF (Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Group, Study to Evaluate the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan in HeartMate 3 LVAD Recipients) sought to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan vs standard of care (SOC) for managing blood pressure (BP) in HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients. METHODS: ENVAD-HF was a prospective multicenter, randomized, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan vs SOC for managing BP (mean arterial pressure goal: 75-90 mm Hg) in stable LVAD recipients with 12-month follow-up. The composite primary endpoint was time to death, deterioration in renal function, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension leading to drug withdrawal. Exploratory endpoints included clinical and biomarker assessments and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: In 60 randomized patients (30 in each arm), sacubitril/valsartan compared with SOC demonstrated an HR of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.08-2.18; P = 0.30) for the primary endpoint at 12 months. Two primary endpoints were reached in the sacubitril/valsartan group (1 death and 1 symptomatic hypotension event) compared with 5 in the SOC group (2 deaths, 2 worsening renal function events, and 1 symptomatic hypotension event). Numerical trends in favor of sacubitril/valsartan were noted for other exploratory endpoints, including a reduced number of BP medications (difference: -1.09 [95% CI: -1.52 to -0.66]; P < 0.0001) and a significantly better Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Score (improvement: +10.6 [95% CI: 2.6-18.7]; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: ENVAD-HF, a prospective randomized controlled trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in stable HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients, demonstrated the safety and tolerability of this therapy in this unique population. The trial forms the basis for a pivotal trial to investigate the usefulness of HF-specific therapies in the LVAD population. (Sacubitril/Valsartan in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients [ENVAD-HF], NCT04103554; A multicENter, randomized, open-label, parallel group, pilot study to evaluate the use of sacubitril/valsartan in HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients, 2019-003888-22).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Initial 4-Year Experience With Microaxial Flow Pumps Within a Tertiary Centre in Regional Australia.

BACKGROUND & AIM: The Microaxial Flow Pump (MFP) is a miniaturised rotary pump that aspirates blood from the left ventricle and expels it into the ascending aorta. It unloads the left ventricle and increases mean arterial pressure and cardiac output. MFP is most commonly utilised in cardiogenic shock, for protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and for ventricular offloading in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHOD: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent MFP insertion at John Hunter Hospital, Australia. Categorical data are represented as counts and percentages, with continuous variables described as means with standard deviations. RESULTS: Twenty-three MFP devices were inserted between September 2020 and May 2024. Five (22%) were for protected PCI, three (13%) for venting with VA-ECMO (ECPELLA), and 15 (65%) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cardiogenic shock. The median age for the overall cohort was 62 years, with a 74% male predominance. Eighty percent of the protected PCI cohort were elective outpatient procedures, and there were no deaths in this cohort. The mortality in the ECPELLA group was 67%. Thirteen (87%) of the patients with cardiogenic shock presented with an anterior infarct, and 53% had cardiac arrest on admission. The overall morality in the cardiogenic shock cohort was 40%. Complications in this cohort included limb ischaemia in four patients (17%) and site bleeding in seven patients (30%). Four patients (17%) required vascular surgery intervention. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience showed the use of MFP in a tertiary centre was safe and feasible, allowing progression from protected percutaneous intervention to acute cardiogenic shock.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs). RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock associated with and without acute myocardial infarction: a real-world retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD, such as Impella), are increasingly used for cardiogenic shock (CS). Outcomes may differ between acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS) and non-AMI CS due to differing pathophysiology and trajectories. METHODS: Using the USA TriNetX Network (2016-2024), we identified adults with CS treated withpLVAD. AMI-CS was defined by MI within seven days of implantation; non-AMI CS included all patients with CS not attributable to acute MI, representing heterogeneous etiologies such as decompensated cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, valvular failure, pulmonary vascular causes, and arrhythmic shock. Patients with recent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were excluded. Propensity matching produced two balanced cohorts (n = 2,026 each). RESULTS: Among 6,873 AMI-CS and 4,521 non-AMI CS patients, matched groups were similar (mean age 63 years, 26% female). AMI-CS had higher mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, p = 0.002), 90 days (HR 1.13, p = 0.02), and 180 days (HR 1.14, p = 0.007). Heart failure (HF) exacerbations (HR 1.21, p < 0.001) and pulmonary edema (HR 1.23, p = 0.005) were also more common in AMI-CS. Stroke, ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, vascular complications, and hemodialysis were comparable. CONCLUSION: AMI-CS patients supported with pLVAD experienced higher mortality and greater HF-related morbidity than non-AMI CS.

Humans↗