Heartware ventricular assist device versus HeartMate II versus HeartMate III in advanced heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Ventricular assist device is one of the treatment options for heart failure patients. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to aid in clinical decision-making of exchanging previous older ventricular assist device models to the newest one, HM3. Methods: The search was conducted across several databases until February 25, 2023, and was registered with the ID of CRD42023405367. Risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. In order to rank and evaluate the pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, we employed conventional and Bayesian network meta-analysis converted to surface under the cumulative ranking. Results: A total of 49 studies with 31,105 patients were included in this review. HM3 is the best device exchange choice that causes the lowest risk of mortality (HM3 (99.98) > HM2 (32.43) > HVAD (17.58)), cerebrovascular accidents (HM3 (99.99) > HM2 (42.41) > HVAD (7.60)), other neurologic events beside cerebrovascular accident (HM3 (91.45) > HM2 (54.16) > HVAD (4.39)), pump thrombosis (HM3 (100.00) > HM2 (39.20) > HVAD (10.80)), and bleeding (HM3 (97.12) > HM2 (47.60) > HVAD (5.28)). HM3 is also better than HM2 in hospital admissions (OR: 1.90 (95% CI: 1.15-3.12)). When complications were present, HM2 or Heartware ventricular assist devices exchange to HM3 lowered the mortality rate compared to exchanging it to the same device type. Conclusion: HM3 is the best device for all six outcomes. Exchange from Heartware ventricular assist devices or HM2 to HM3 rather than the same ventricular assist device type is recommended only if a complication is present.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".