Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 15, 2026

Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in Juvenile Landrace Swine: A LVAD Implantation Model of Pediatric Heart Failure
Published on: January 16, 2026
Readmissions After Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Differences Observed Between Two
Nicholas A Haglund1, Mary E Davis, Nicole M Tricarico
1From the *Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (Haglund, Keebler), †Department of Cardiac Surgery (Maltais, Davis, Tricarico), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Insights
Continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients experienced frequent readmissions. HeartMate-II recipients had higher readmission rates and more multiple readmissions compared to HeartWare recipients within six months post-implant.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Clinical Research
Background:
- Readmissions are common after continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation.
- Understanding readmission patterns is crucial for improving patient outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the frequency and causes of readmissions between HeartMate-II (HM-II) and HeartWare (HW) CF-LVADs within six months post-implantation.
- To identify specific clinical profiles associated with readmissions in CF-LVAD patients.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective assessment of 81 patients receiving HM-II (n=35) or HW (n=46) CF-LVADs as bridge to transplant.
- Readmissions categorized into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles.
- Analysis of readmission rates and etiologies at six months post-implant.
Main Results:
- Overall readmission rate was higher for HM-II recipients (2.3) versus HW recipients (1.4) at six months (p=0.024).
- Multiple readmissions (≥2) were more frequent in HM-II recipients (66%) compared to HW recipients (44%) (p=0.047).
- Arrhythmia and infection were significantly more common reasons for readmission in HM-II recipients.
Conclusions:
- Significant differences exist in readmission frequency and patterns between HM-II and HW CF-LVADs.
- HM-II recipients experienced higher rates of overall and multiple readmissions, particularly due to arrhythmias and infections.
- Device choice may influence early post-implantation readmission profiles in CF-LVAD patients.
Abstract:
Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43% or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57%, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66% vs. HW 20, 44%; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87% of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy VII: Pre and Post Operative Nursing Management
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

