Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with biventricular assist devices (BiVADs) have worse outcomes than those with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). It is unclear whether these outcomes are due to device selection or patient factors. We used propensity score matching to reduce patient heterogeneity and compare outcomes in pediatric patients supported with BiVADs with a similar LVAD cohort. METHODS: The Pedimacs registry was queried for patients who were supported with BiVAD or LVAD. Patients were analyzed by BiVAD or LVAD at primary implant and the 2 groups were compared before and after using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 363 patients who met inclusion criteria, 63 (17%) underwent primary BiVAD support. After propensity score matching, differences between cohorts were reduced. Six months after implant, in the BiVAD cohort (LVAD cohort) 52.5% (42.5%) had been transplanted; 32.5% (40%) were alive with device, and 15% (10%) had died. Survival was similar between cohorts (P = .31, log-rank), but patients with BiVADs were more likely to experience a major adverse event in the form of bleeding (P = .04, log-rank). At 1 week and 1 and 3 months' postimplant, the percentage of patients on mechanical ventilation, on dialysis, or with elevated bilirubin was similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: When propensity scores were used to reduce differences in patient characteristics, there were no differences in survival but more major adverse events in the patients with BiVADs, particularly bleeding. Differences in unmatched patient outcomes between LVAD and BiVAD cohorts likely represent differences in severity of illness rather than mode of support.