Differences in wait-list mortality: Temporary vs durable circulatory support devices
In this propensity-score-matched analysis, durable mechanical circulatory support had better outcomes than temporary mechanical circulatory support. HM3 had the lowest risk of composite outcomes.
Authors
- Ashrith Guha
- Arvind Bhimaraj (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3042-8027)
- Rayan Yousefzai (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1759-8892)
- Sapna Legha
- Nadia Fida (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-5007)
- Salma Zook (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-789X)
- Cindy M. Martin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9831-3341)
- Edward A. Graviss (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-5813)
- Mahwash Kassi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-8554)
- Duc Tan Nguyen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5059-4404)
- Ju Kim (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-6506)
- Asif Ali Syed (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7543-7213)
- Janardhana Gorthi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4867-7347)
- K. Ingram (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9573-0790)
- Imad Hussain (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7702-0841)
Institutions
- Houston Methodist (US)
- Baylor College of Medicine (US)
- Methodist Hospital (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- JHLT Open
- Published
- 2025-06-02
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100312
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.67