Multicentre clinical trial experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device: 30-day outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the operative experience and 30-day outcomes of patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System (LVAS) during the Conformité Européenne (CE) Mark clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria defining advanced-stage heart failure and included the indications of bridge to transplant and destination therapy. Operative parameters, outcomes, adverse events, physical status and quality-of-life parameters were assessed in the first 30 days after LVAS implant. RESULTS: Fifty patients were implanted with the HeartMate 3 at 10 centres in 6 countries. The 30-day survival rate was 98%. The median operative and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 200 (range: 95-585) min and 84 (range: 47-250) min, respectively. Patients required transfusion with packed red blood cells (3.6 ± 2.3 units), fresh frozen plasma (6.5 ± 5 units) and platelets (2 ± 1 units). Six patients (12%) required reoperation for postoperative bleeding and 10 patients (20%) did not require blood transfusion. The median intensive care time was 6 days (range: 1-112 days) and the total hospital stay was 28 days (range: 14-116 days). The most common adverse events were bleeding (15, 30%), arrhythmia (14, 28%) and infection (10, 20%). There were 2 (4%) strokes. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes following implantation of the HeartMate 3 demonstrates excellent survival with low adverse event rates. The LVAD performed as intended with no haemolysis or device failure. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02170363. HeartMate 3™ CE Mark Clinical Investigation Plan (HM3 CE Mark).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".