Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus orthotopic heart transplantation in adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Due to the lack of donor hearts, many studies have assessed the prognosis of heart failure (HF) patients treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD). However, previous results have not been consistent and minimal data is available regarding long-term outcomes. There is no consensus on whether CF-LVAD as a bridge or destination therapy (DT) can equal orthotopic heart transplantation (HTx). The purpose of our study is to compare clinical outcomes between CF-LVAD and HTx in adults.

We searched controlled trials from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until July 1, 2020. The mortality at different time points and adverse events were analyzed among 12 included studies.

No significant differences were found in mortality at one-year [odds ratio (OR) =1.08; 95% CI: 0.97-1.21], two-year (OR =1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.12), three-year (OR =1.02; 95% CI: 0.69-1.51), and five-year (OR =1.02; 95% CI: 0.93-1.11), as well as the comparison of stroke, bleeding, and infection between CF-LVAD as a bridge versus HTx. The pooled analysis of one-year mortality (OR =2.76; 95% CI: 0.38-20.18) and two-year mortality (OR =1.64; 95% CI: 0.22-12.23) revealed no significant difference between CF-LVAD DT and HTx. Comparisons of adverse events showed no differences in bleeding or infection, but a higher risk of stroke (OR =5.09; 95% CI: 1.74-14.84) for patients treated with CF-LVAD DT than with HTx.

CF-LVAD as a bridge results in similar outcomes as HTx within five years. CF-LVAD as a DT is associated with similar one-year and two-year mortality, but carries a higher risk of stroke, as compared with HTx.