» Articles » PMID: 30883052

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device - Final Report

Abstract

Background: In two interim analyses of this trial, patients with advanced heart failure who were treated with a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device were less likely to have pump thrombosis or nondisabling stroke than were patients treated with a mechanical-bearing axial-flow left ventricular assist device.

Methods: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the centrifugal-flow pump or the axial-flow pump irrespective of the intended goal of use (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The principal secondary end point was pump replacement at 2 years.

Results: This final analysis included 1028 enrolled patients: 516 in the centrifugal-flow pump group and 512 in the axial-flow pump group. In the analysis of the primary end point, 397 patients (76.9%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 332 (64.8%) in the axial-flow pump group, remained alive and free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device at 2 years (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.91; P<0.001 for superiority). Pump replacement was less common in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (12 patients [2.3%] vs. 57 patients [11.3%]; relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.38; P<0.001). The numbers of events per patient-year for stroke of any severity, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group.

Conclusions: Among patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device was associated with less frequent need for pump replacement than an axial-flow device and was superior with respect to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755.).

Citing Articles

Multicenter study for CH-VAD as a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device.

Lu Y, Zhao S, Han J, Lv Q, Du X, Hua Z iScience. 2025; 28(2):111764.

PMID: 40008363 PMC: 11850155. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.111764.


A study on the global patterns in the design and development of ventricular assist devices: a visualization approach.

Sood A, Prasada Rao A Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025; 12:1371443.

PMID: 39981347 PMC: 11841463. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1371443.


The experience of bodily image for patients with left ventricular assist device.

Milaniak I, Witkowska E, Cebula M, Tomsia P, Wasilewski G, Gorkiewicz-Kot I Front Psychiatry. 2025; 15:1484428.

PMID: 39931192 PMC: 11808206. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1484428.


Successful management of mycotic visceral aneurysms in a LVAD patient and navigating LVAD postoperative challenges.

Wermine K, Gohar S, Milhoan R, Youree B, Ramarathnam V, Alqaim M J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2025; 11(2):101715.

PMID: 39896821 PMC: 11787573. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvscit.2024.101715.


The fourth report of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) of the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery: focus on standardized outcome ratios.

Veen K, Ahmed M, Stark C, Botta L, Anastasiadis K, Bernhardt A Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025; 67(2).

PMID: 39874447 PMC: 11879288. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaf016.