BACKGROUND: Several clinical prediction schemes for right ventricular failure (RVF) risk after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation have been developed in both the pulsatile- and continuous-flow LVAD eras. The performance of these models has not been evaluated systematically in a continuous-flow LVAD cohort. METHODS: We evaluated 6 clinical RVF prediction models (Michigan, Penn, Utah, Kormos et al, CRITT, Pittsburgh Decision Tree) in 116 patients (age 51 ± 13 years; 41.4% white and 56.0% black; 66.4% men; 56.0% bridge to transplant, 37.1% destination therapy, 17.4% bridge to decision) who received a continuous-flow LVAD (HeartMate II: 79 patients, HeartWare: 37 patients) between 2008 and 2013. RESULTS: Overall, 37 patients (31.9%) developed RVF, defined: as pulmonary vasodilator use for ≥48 hours or inotrope use for ≥14 days post-operatively; re-institution of inotropes; multi-organ failure due to RVF; or need for mechanical RV support. Median (Quartile 1 to Quartile 3) time to initial discontinuation of inotropes was 6 (range 4 to 8) days. Among scores, the Michigan score reached significance for RVF prediction but discrimination was modest (C = 0.62 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.72], p = 0.021; positive predictive value [PPV] 60.0%; negative predictive value [NPV] 75.8%), followed by CRITT (C = 0.60 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.71], p = 0.059; PPV 40.5%; NPV 72.2%). Other models did not significantly discriminate RVF. The newer, INTERMACS 3.0 definition for RVF, which includes inotropic support beyond 7 days, was reached by 57 patients (49.1%). The Kormos model performed best with this definition (C = 0.62 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.71], p = 0.005; PPV 64.3%; NPV 59.5%), followed by Penn (C = 0.61), Michigan (C = 0.60) and CRITT (C = 0.60), but overall score performance was modest. CONCLUSION: Current schemes for post-LVAD RVF risk prediction perform only modestly when applied to external populations.
BACKGROUND: Several clinical prediction schemes for right ventricular failure (RVF) risk after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation have been developed in both the pulsatile- and continuous-flow LVAD eras. The performance of these models has not been evaluated systematically in a continuous-flow LVAD cohort. METHODS: We evaluated 6 clinical RVF prediction models (Michigan, Penn, Utah, Kormos et al, CRITT, Pittsburgh Decision Tree) in 116 patients (age 51 ± 13 years; 41.4% white and 56.0% black; 66.4% men; 56.0% bridge to transplant, 37.1% destination therapy, 17.4% bridge to decision) who received a continuous-flow LVAD (HeartMate II: 79 patients, HeartWare: 37 patients) between 2008 and 2013. RESULTS: Overall, 37 patients (31.9%) developed RVF, defined: as pulmonary vasodilator use for ≥48 hours or inotrope use for ≥14 days post-operatively; re-institution of inotropes; multi-organ failure due to RVF; or need for mechanical RV support. Median (Quartile 1 to Quartile 3) time to initial discontinuation of inotropes was 6 (range 4 to 8) days. Among scores, the Michigan score reached significance for RVF prediction but discrimination was modest (C = 0.62 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.72], p = 0.021; positive predictive value [PPV] 60.0%; negative predictive value [NPV] 75.8%), followed by CRITT (C = 0.60 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.71], p = 0.059; PPV 40.5%; NPV 72.2%). Other models did not significantly discriminate RVF. The newer, INTERMACS 3.0 definition for RVF, which includes inotropic support beyond 7 days, was reached by 57 patients (49.1%). The Kormos model performed best with this definition (C = 0.62 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.71], p = 0.005; PPV 64.3%; NPV 59.5%), followed by Penn (C = 0.61), Michigan (C = 0.60) and CRITT (C = 0.60), but overall score performance was modest. CONCLUSION: Current schemes for post-LVAD RVF risk prediction perform only modestly when applied to external populations.
Authors: David S Raymer; Jonathan D Moreno; Marc A Sintek; Michael E Nassif; Christopher T Sparrow; Luigi Adamo; Eric L Novak; Shane J LaRue; Justin M Vader Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Anthony E Peters; LaVone A Smith; Priscilla Ababio; Khadijah Breathett; Timothy L McMurry; Jamie L W Kennedy; Mohammad Abuannadi; James Bergin; Sula Mazimba Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Michael S Kiernan; E Wilson Grandin; Marshall Brinkley; Navin K Kapur; Duc Thinh Pham; Robin Ruthazer; J Eduardo Rame; Pavan Atluri; Edo Y Birati; Guilherme H Oliveira; Francis D Pagani; James K Kirklin; David Naftel; Robert L Kormos; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; David DeNofrio Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Ronald D Baxter; Kristen M Tecson; Sasha Still; Justin D G Collier; Joost Felius; Susan M Joseph; Shelley A Hall; Brian Lima Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Maria Concetta Pastore; Giuseppe De Carli; Giulia Elena Mandoli; Flavio D'Ascenzi; Marta Focardi; Francesco Contorni; Sergio Mondillo; Matteo Cameli Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 4.214