Literature DB >> 22541834

Risk assessment for continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: does the destination therapy risk score work? An analysis of over 1,000 patients.

Jeffrey J Teuteberg1, Greg A Ewald, Robert M Adamson, Katherine Lietz, Leslie W Miller, Antone J Tatooles, Robert L Kormos, Kartik S Sundareswaran, David J Farrar, Joseph G Rogers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the utility of the Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).
BACKGROUND: The DTRS was developed to predict the risk of 90-day in-hospital mortality with pulsatile flow LVAD as destination therapy (DT). Despite ongoing use in patients with continuous flow devices, its utility has not been studied in such populations.
METHODS: The DTRS was determined in 1,124 patients with the continuous flow HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD as a bridge to transplant (BTT, n = 486) and DT (n = 638) and 114 DT patients with the pulsatile flow HeartMate XVE (Thoratec Corporation). Patients were divided into risk groups based on DTRS: low (0-8), medium (9-16), and high (>16).
RESULTS: The 90-day in-hospital mortality for low-, medium-, and high-risk groups was 8%, 7%, and 16%, respectively, for BTT patients; 9%, 12%, and 19%, respectively, for DT patients; and 11%, 18%, and 25%, respectively, for XVE DT patients. The high-risk groups had more than a 2-fold increased risk of mortality compared with the low-risk groups. However, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for 90-day in-hospital mortality yielded modest values ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 for the HeartMate II BTT and DT groups, respectively. Survival rates over 2 years were statistically significantly different as stratified by the 3 DTRS groups for patients implanted for DT but not for BTT.
CONCLUSIONS: DTRS provides poor discrimination of mortality for BTT patients and only modest discrimination for DT patients receiving continuous flow LVAD.
Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22541834     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  12 in total

1.  Continuous flow left ventricular assist device implant significantly improves pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular contractility, and tricuspid valve competence.

Authors:  Pavan Atluri; Alexander S Fairman; John W MacArthur; Andrew B Goldstone; Jeffrey E Cohen; Jessica L Howard; Christyna M Zalewski; Yasuhiro Shudo; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 1.620

Review 2.  Current indications for transplantation: stratification of severe heart failure and shared decision-making.

Authors:  Darko Vucicevic; Lily Honoris; Federica Raia; Mario Deng
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-01

3.  Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitor Designed for Patients With Heart Failure Supported with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Authors:  Pavol Sajgalik; Vaclav Kremen; Vratislav Fabian; Simon Maltais; John M Stulak; Sudhir S Kushwaha; Lyle D Joyce; John A Schirger; Bruce D Johnson
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.872

4.  A new Bayesian network-based risk stratification model for prediction of short-term and long-term LVAD mortality.

Authors:  Natasha A Loghmanpour; Manreet K Kanwar; Marek J Druzdzel; Raymond L Benza; Srinivas Murali; James F Antaki
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.872

5.  Hyperlactatemia as a prognostic indicator for contemporary left ventricular assist device implantation.

Authors:  Yeahwa Hong; Hannah Rinehardt; Toby Zhu; Yisi Wang; Floyd Thoma; Arman Kilic
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2022-02-10

6.  Comparison of early versus delayed timing of left ventricular assist device implantation as a bridge-to-transplantation: An analysis of the UNOS dataset.

Authors:  Shuichi Kitada; P Christian Schulze; Zhezhen Jin; Kevin Clerkin; Shunichi Homma; Donna M Mancini
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 4.164

Review 7.  Left ventricular assist device patient selection: do risk scores help?

Authors:  Ashwin K Ravichandran; Jennifer Cowger
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  A review of ethical considerations for ventricular assist device placement in older adults.

Authors:  Courtenay R Bruce
Journal:  Aging Dis       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 6.745

Review 9.  Predictors of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Authors:  Marijan Koprivanac; Marta Kelava; Franjo Sirić; Vincent B Cruz; Nader Moazami; Tomislav Mihaljević
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.351

10.  Cardiac Health Risk Stratification System (CHRiSS): a Bayesian-based decision support system for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy.

Authors:  Natasha A Loghmanpour; Marek J Druzdzel; James F Antaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.