HeartMate-3 Ventricular Assist Devices Versus the Total Artificial Heart for Biventricular Support: A Single-Center Series.

Abstract

Introduction: The SynCardia total artificial heart (TAH) is the only device approved for biventricular support. Continuous flow ventricular assist devices (VAD) in a biventricular configuration (BiVAD) have been used with variable results. The purpose of this report was to examine differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between two HeartMate-3 (HM-3) VADs in comparison with TAH support. Methods: All patients who received durable biventricular mechanical support from November 2018 to May 2022 at The Mount Sinai Hospital (New York) were considered. Baseline clinical, echocardiographic, hemodynamic, and outcome data were extracted. Primary outcomes were postoperative survival and successful bridge-to-transplant (BTT). Results: A total of 16 patients received durable biventricular mechanical support during the study period, of which 6 (38%) patients received two HM-3 VAD pumps as BiVAD support and 10 (62%) patients received a TAH. Overall, TAH patients had a lower median lactate (p < 0.05) at baseline compared to those on HM-3 BiVAD support yet had higher operative morbidity, lower 6-month survival (p < 0.05), and a higher rate of renal failure (80 vs. 17%; p = 0.03). However, survival declined to the same rate at 1 year (50%) and was largely because of extracardiac adverse events related to underlying comorbidities (particularly, renal failure and diabetes, p < 0.05). Successful BTT was achieved in 3 out of 6 HM-3 BiVAD patients and in 5 out of 10 TAH patients. Conclusion: In our single center experience, similar outcomes were observed among patients BTT with HM-3 BiVAD compared to those BTT on TAH support despite lower Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support level.