Comparison of SynCardia total artificial heart and HeartWare HVAD biventricular support for management of biventricular heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing SynCardia total artificial heart (TAH) and biventricular HeartWare ventricular assist device (Bi-HVAD) support for biventricular heart failure (HF). Methods: Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies detailing patients who underwent biventricular assist device implantation using Bi-HVAD devices and those who underwent TAH placement for biventricular HF. Twelve studies including 512 patients in the TAH group versus 38 patients in the Bi-HVAD group were pooled for meta-analysis. Results: Ischemic cardiac etiology was present in 32% (95% CI, 24–47) of TAH vs. 15% (95% CI, 4–44) of Bi-HVAD patients (P=0.21). There was a comparable incidence of stroke [TAH 11% (95% CI, 7–16) vs. Bi-HVAD 13% (95% CI, 2–51), P=0.86] and acute kidney injury [TAH 28% (95% CI, 2–89) vs. Bi-HVAD 27% (95% CI, 9–59), P=0.98]. Overall infection rate was 67% (95% CI, 47–82) in TAH and 36% (95% CI, 10–74) in Bi-HVAD (P=0.16). Driveline infections were comparable between the two groups [TAH 11% (95% CI, 6–19) vs. Bi-HVAD 8% (95% CI, 1–39), P=0.73] and although a higher incidence of mediastinitis was found in the Bi-HVAD group [TAH 4% (95% CI, 2–7) vs. Bi-HVAD 15% (95% CI, 4–45), P=0.07] there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Postoperative bleeding was present in 42% (95% CI, 28–58) of TAH vs. 23% (95% CI, 8–52) of Bi-HVAD (P=0.22). Patients in the TAH group had shorter duration of support [TAH 71 days (95% CI, 15–127) vs. Bi-HVAD 167 days (95% CI, 116–217), P=0.01]. At the mean follow-up time of 120 days, (95% CI, 83–157) patients in both groups had similar overall mortality [TAH 36% (95% CI, 22–49) vs. Bi-HVAD 26% (95% CI, 6–46), P=0.44] including mortality on device support [TAH 26% (95% CI, 17–36) vs. Bi-HVAD 21% (95% CI, 4–37), P=0.55]. Discharge home on support was achieved in 6% (95% CI, 4–17%) of TAH patients vs. 73% (95% CI, 48–89%) of Bi-HVAD (P<0.01), and 68% (95% CI, 52–84) of TAH patients were transplanted vs. 61% (95% CI, 47–75) in the Bi-HVAD group (P=0.14). Conclusions: Patients on Bi-HVAD support were more likely to be able to be discharged home on support and had similar overall mortality to TAH, albeit with much longer duration of support.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".