Cited by 3,063Mechanical Circulatory Support DevicesTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair

Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

Open access
Slaughter, Mark S., Rogers, Joseph G., Milano, Carmelo A., Russell, Stuart D., Conte, John V., Feldman, David, Sun, Benjamin, Tatooles, Antone J. +6 more·2009·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure have improved survival rates and quality of life when treated with implanted pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices as compared with medical therapy. New continuous-flow devices are smaller and may be more durable than the pulsatile-flow devices. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we enrolled patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for transplantation, in a 2:1 ratio, to undergo implantation of a continuous-flow device (134 patients) or the currently approved pulsatile-flow device (66 patients). The primary composite end point was, at 2 years, survival free from disabling stroke and reoperation to repair or replace the device. Secondary end points included survival, frequency of adverse events, the quality of life, and functional capacity. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups, with a median age of 64 years (range, 26 to 81), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%, and nearly 80% of patients receiving intravenous inotropic agents. The primary composite end point was achieved in more patients with continuous-flow devices than with pulsatile-flow devices (62 of 134 [46%] vs. 7 of 66 [11%]; P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.54; P<0.001), and patients with continuous-flow devices had superior actuarial survival rates at 2 years (58% vs. 24%, P=0.008). Adverse events and device replacements were less frequent in patients with the continuous-flow device. The quality of life and functional capacity improved significantly in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced heart failure significantly improved the probability of survival free from stroke and device failure at 2 years as compared with a pulsatile device. Both devices significantly improved the quality of life and functional capacity. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00121485.)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0909938

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Device therapies such as cardiac resynchronization therapy and left ventricular assist devices are associated with reduced dyspnoea.

    “Device therapies such as cardiac resynchronization therapy and left ventricular assist devices are also associated with reduced dyspnoea. 58 , 59”

    From Prioritizing symptom management in the treatment of chronic heart failure (2020) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Discussion reports improved patient-reported symptom burden after left ventricular assist device implantation and describes symptom improvement in a cited cardiac-resynchronization study. The Functional Status and Quality of Life section also reports improved NYHA class, but neither passage identifies dyspnoea specifically as an outcome that decreased. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1435-43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slaughter, M. S., Rogers, J. G., Milano, C. A., Russell, S. D., Conte, J. V., Feldman, D., Sun, B., Tatooles, A. J., Delgado, R. M., Long, J. W., Wozniak, T. C., Ghumman, W., Farrar, D. J., & Frazier, O. H.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Intermountain Medical Center (US)
  • Indiana University Health (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2009-12-03
Volume
361
Issue
23
Pages
2241-2251
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2165719156
Cited by
3,063
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 188 · 2019: 176 · 2018: 205 · 2017: 245 · 2016: 246 · 2015: 235 · 2014: 287 · 2013: 286 · 2012: 262
FWCI
116.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Keywords
advanced heart failure, continuous-flow LVAD, mechanical circulatory support, survival, stroke, device failure, quality of life, functional capacity, equipment replacement
MeSH terms
Actuarial Analysis, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cause of Death, Female, Heart Failure, Heart-Assist Devices, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Quality of Life, Stroke Volume, Proportional Hazards Models, Stroke, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review