English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Compare clinical outcomes of the last generation centrifugal LVADs implanted as bridge to transplant. Methods: Retrospective analysis of demographics, clinical parameters, surgical technique, adverse events and survival in patients treated with LVAD centrifugal pump as bridge to transplant. Primary endpoint was survival at one year. Secondary endpoints were device related complications. Results: Thirty-two (32) adult patients received centrifugal LVAD: 16 (50%) the HW and 16 (50%) the HM3. There were no significant differences in survival at 1,3 and 12 months post-implantation. Hemorrhage requiring surgery occurred in 9 (56.3%) patients in the HW group and 5 (31.3%) in the HM3 group. Stroke occurred in 2 (12%) HW and 1 (6.3%) HM3. Two patients required surgery to treat infection of the driveline, one in each group. Conclusions: Both devices provided excellent hemodynamic support and had similar stroke and bleeding complication rates even if the HM3 was implanted in sicker patients. *Correspondence to: Anna Nowacka, Department of Cardiac surgery, University Hospital, Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland, E-mail: anna.nowacka@chuv.ch

journal of integrative cardiology

Clinical results of continuous flow ventricular assist devices: A comparative analysis between heartmate 3 and heart ware. Are centrifugal pumps all the same?