Key result
HM3 implantation succeeds in 2 pediatric patients using CT-measured chest dimensions.
Why the study?
The Heartmate 3 is larger than the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device, leading to consensus that Heartware was more appropriate for small patients, but data on HM3 implantation feasibility in small patients is limited.
Is Heartmate 3 implantation feasible in small pediatric patients using CT-guided chest diameter assessment?
Case Report (n=2)
Is Heartmate 3 implantation feasible in small pediatric patients using CT-guided chest diameter assessment?
Heartmate 3 implantation may be feasible in small pediatric patients when guided by CT assessment of chest cavity dimensions.
HM3 implantation feasible in small children; hypothesis-generating, prospective comparison with Heartware needed before practice change.
In recent years, the Heartmate 3 (HM3) has largely replaced the use of other intracorporeal left ventricular assist devices in the adult field. Because the HM3 is larger than the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device, the general consensus was that for small patients, the Heartware Ventricular Assist Device was the most appropriate implantable device option. Our goal was to describe our experiences with the successful implantation of the HM3 in 2 children, aged 9 and 11. We report on the chest cavity dimensions, as measured on computed tomography, that can be used to assess the feasibility of HM3 implantation in small patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Puyvelde et al. (2022) conducted a case report in Heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (n=2). Heartmate 3 implantation was evaluated on Successful implantation and chest cavity dimensions. Heartmate 3 was successfully implanted in 2 children, aged 9 and 11, demonstrating that CT-measured chest cavity dimensions can be used to assess feasibility in small patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: