hedwards: It likely would, the problem is that there isn't any certainty. That and we're not sure what the adaptation might be, how long it would take or if there's a population that couldn't handle it. We know that if we replace a body part with one that functions identically what we're dealing with, but if you substitute something that doesn't then it's really hard to say what the consequences of that might be.
I'm not a particular expert on this, it could be harmful or it could ultimately prove to be advantageous for things like long range shooting.
From the article, it seems they have done animal testing. Simulations and animals can only take one so far though. I imagine that's why the first human test was on someone who was going to die anyway. (As an aside his disease sounds like a truly horrible way to die. His poor family having to watch that ... no wonder his wife was emotional.) While naturally long-term effects of this new model can't be studied until it's put into someone longterm, current artificial hearts already have known limitations as stated in the article. So even with potential longterm deleterious effects (or beneficial ones as you yourself point out) it might still be an improvement over current models if not a panacea.
With anything new, regardless of how different or similar it is to the body's method of handling the function, one would hope the researchers would perform extensive testing before recommending widespread use. Although, in medical research, it is not unusual to cut studies short when for instance a drug shows huge beneficial effects for a deadly disease. Doctors, for obvious reasons, at that point will try to save the control group rather than let them continue to suffer and die. It does make it harder to study longterm effects of the drug, but it's rather harder to condemn the doctors and researchers for being human. It's definitely an ethical quandary for medical researchers and one which I'm very glad that as a basic science researcher I don't have to deal with.
