Do patients with the centrifugal flow HeartMate 3 or HeartWare left ventricular assist device have better outcomes compared to those with axial flow HeartMate II?
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026

In Vitro Thrombosis Test for Ventricular Assist Devices
Published on: March 21, 2025
Daniel S Florisson1, Sean M Conte2, Joshua A De Bono1
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia.
Insights
Centrifugal flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) devices show better outcomes than axial flow HeartMate II (HMII) devices, with lower thrombosis and stroke rates. HeartWare left ventricular assist device (HVAD) outcomes are comparable to HMII with strict blood pressure control.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Medical Devices
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are crucial for end-stage heart failure.
- Comparing outcomes between different LVAD designs (centrifugal vs. axial flow) is essential for clinical decision-making.
- HeartMate 3 (HM3), HeartWare (HVAD), and HeartMate II (HMII) represent key LVAD technologies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical outcomes of centrifugal flow LVADs (HM3, HVAD) versus axial flow LVADs (HMII).
- To evaluate device-specific complications such as pump thrombosis, stroke, and infection.
- To assess quality of life and functional capacity differences between device types.
Main Methods:
- A best evidence topic review was conducted, analyzing 21 high-quality papers from an initial search of 1791 studies.
- Key data extracted included study type, patient demographics, device type, and clinical outcomes.
- Focus on results from major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) like MOMENTUM 3 and ENDURANCE, alongside retrospective studies.
Main Results:
- The MOMENTUM 3 RCT showed HM3 had significantly lower rates of pump thrombosis (1.1% vs. 15.7%) and stroke (10.1% vs. 19.2%) compared to HMII at 2 years.
- The ENDURANCE RCT indicated poorer outcomes for HVAD compared to HMII, with higher rates of sepsis, stroke, and right heart failure, though outcomes improved with strict blood pressure control.
- Retrospective studies on HVAD vs. HMII showed variable results, with some reporting increased complications for HVAD, while others found no significant differences.
Conclusions:
- Centrifugal flow HM3 demonstrates superior outcomes compared to axial flow HMII, particularly regarding device-related complications.
- Centrifugal flow HVAD shows comparable outcomes to HMII when postoperative blood pressure is strictly managed.
- Based on current evidence, HM3 appears to be the preferred centrifugal flow device, though conclusions are heavily influenced by a large industry-sponsored RCT.
Abstract:
A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Do patients with centrifugal flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) or HeartWare left ventricular assist device (HVAD) have better outcomes compared to those with the axial flow HeartMate II (HMII)?' Altogether 1791 papers were found using the reported search, of which 21 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. In publications reporting on MOMENTUM 3 randomized control trial (RCT), HM3 had better outcomes compared to HMII with a lower rate of pump thrombosis (1.1% vs 15.7%), stroke events (10.1% vs 19.2%) and ischaemic stroke (6.3% vs 13.4%) at 2-year follow-up. Markers of quality of life and functional capacity were comparable between the 2 devices at 6 months. In publications reporting on ENDURANCE RCTs, compared to HMII, patients with HVAD had poorer outcomes with an increased rate of sepsis (23.6% vs 15.4%), stroke (29.7% vs 12.1%) and right heart failure (38.5% vs 26.8%) postoperatively. Outcomes were improved for the HVAD group in a more recent RCT where strict blood pressure control was instigated postoperatively. Outcomes from retrospective studies comparing HMII with HVAD varied, with some publications reporting higher rates of right ventricular assist device use (29% vs 15%), gastrointestinal bleeding (30% vs 0%), cerebrovascular accident (44% vs 10%), transient ischaemic attack (5% vs 2%) and higher cumulative risk of infection and haemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident with HVAD. This is not consistent across these studies, and 9 studies including a systematic review reported no difference in any outcomes. In conclusion, patients with centrifugal flow HM3 have better outcomes than those with axial flow HMII. Although there is some variability in outcomes in retrospective studies, patients with centrifugal flow HeartWare HVAD have similar outcomes to those with axial flow HMII when strict blood pressure control is instigated postoperatively. By inference, centrifugal flow HM3 would appear to be the superior device, although all conclusions are based on 1 large (industry-sponsored) RCT.
More Related Videos
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
07:39Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Gene Flow
Blood Flow
Couette Flow
Laminar Flow
Flow Table Test
Concrete is placed within a truncated cone mold that is 8 inches high with an 8-inch base diameter and a 5-inch top diameter. The...
Flow Cytometry
In...