Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies01:22

Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies

38
Additional therapies for treating patients with heart failure (HF) may include procedural interventions, supplemental oxygen, the management of sleep disorders, and nutritional therapy.Procedural InterventionsImplantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: For patients at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias due to severe left ventricular dysfunction, an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) can detect and terminate these arrhythmias, preventing sudden cardiac death and improving survival rates.
38
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy01:30

Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy

30
Dilated cardiomyopathy, or DCM, is a progressive myocardial disorder characterized by ventricular chamber dilation and contractile dysfunction.EtiologyVarious factors can cause DCM, including hypertension and heavy alcohol intake, which contribute to the weakening and enlargement of the heart muscle. Viral infections, such as Coxsackievirus B, adenoviruses, and influenza, can lead to DCM by causing inflammation and damage to heart tissue. Certain chemotherapeutic agents, including daunorubicin,...
30
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care01:29

Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

40
Managing cardiomyopathy involves addressing underlying or precipitating causes, treating heart failure with medications, and implementing dietary changes and a balanced exercise and rest regimen.Lifestyle ModificationsCardiomyopathy patients should adopt a low-sodium diet to reduce fluid retention and manage heart failure. A personalized exercise and rest plan helps maintain physical fitness without overstraining the heart. Avoiding alcohol and tobacco is essential to prevent further damage to...
40

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Heart Failure in Adult Congenital Heart Disease.

Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal·2026
Same author

When does additional information improve accuracy of RNA secondary structure prediction?

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2026
Same author

Long-Term HM3 Outcomes: Is Age the Signal or the Surrogate?

JACC. Heart failure·2026
Same author

<i>In vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i> activity of omadacycline against <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>.

Frontiers in microbiology·2026
Same author

Marine plastic pollution undermines the livelihoods and income of fishing communities in Viet Nam.

Communications earth & environment·2026
Same author

Artificial intelligence for right ventricular assessment: current evidence and future directions.

Current opinion in cardiology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 17, 2025

Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
07:41

Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device

Published on: July 20, 2022

2.0K

Differences in wait-list mortality: Temporary vs durable circulatory support devices.

Mahwash Kassi1, Salma Zook1, Duc Nguyen2

  • 1Department of Cardiology, Houston Methodist Hospital - DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, TX.

JHLT Open
|July 3, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) showed better outcomes than temporary mechanical circulatory support for heart transplant patients. The HeartMate 3 LVAD demonstrated the lowest risk of waitlist mortality and delisting.

Keywords:
Heart transplantationMechanical circulatory supportPropensity score-matchingUNOS allocation systemWaitlist mortality

More Related Videos

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
07:39

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock

Published on: August 16, 2021

3.7K
Implantation of the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart
16:11

Implantation of the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart

Published on: July 18, 2014

35.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 17, 2025

Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
07:41

Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device

Published on: July 20, 2022

2.0K
Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
07:39

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock

Published on: August 16, 2021

3.7K
Implantation of the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart
16:11

Implantation of the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart

Published on: July 18, 2014

35.5K

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Transplantation Medicine
  • Medical Devices

Background:

  • Changes in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation system in 2018 influenced the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) versus temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to heart transplantation.
  • This shift necessitated a comparative analysis of patient outcomes between these two support strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the composite outcome of waitlist mortality and delisting incidence at one year between patients supported by durable LVADs and temporary MCS.
  • To evaluate the effectiveness of different mechanical circulatory support devices in the context of updated organ allocation policies.

Main Methods:

  • A cohort study included adult patients listed for heart transplantation on mechanical circulatory support between October 2018 and October 2021.
  • Exclusion criteria included patients with right ventricular devices, biventricular devices, total artificial hearts, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenators.
  • Propensity-score matching was used to compare outcomes between durable LVAD and temporary MCS groups, with survival analysis employing Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression.

Main Results:

  • The study analyzed 4,569 patients (1,877 temporary MCS, 2,692 durable LVADs), with 660 patients included after propensity-score matching.
  • The composite event rate was significantly lower in the durable LVAD group (15.9%) compared to the temporary MCS group (35.2%) (p < 0.001).
  • Temporary MCS was associated with a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for adverse outcomes (HR 3.37, p < 0.001), with the HeartMate 3 (HM3) device showing the best outcomes.

Conclusions:

  • In a propensity-score-matched analysis, durable mechanical circulatory support demonstrated superior outcomes compared to temporary mechanical circulatory support for patients awaiting heart transplantation.
  • The HeartMate 3 device was associated with the lowest risk of composite adverse outcomes, highlighting its efficacy in this patient population.