Andreas P Kalogeropoulos1, Raghda Al-Anbari2, Ann Pekarek2, Kristin Wittersheim2, Maria A Pernetz2, Amber Hampton2, Jerilyn Steinberg2, Vasiliki V Georgiopoulou2, Javed Butler3, J David Vega4, Andrew L Smith2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, Emory University, 1462 Clifton Road NE, Suite 535B, Atlanta, GA, USA akaloge@emory.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, Emory University, 1462 Clifton Road NE, Suite 535B, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 4. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Despite improved outcomes and lower right ventricular failure (RVF) rates with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), RVF still occurs in 20-40% of LVAD recipients and leads to worse clinical and patient-centred outcomes and higher utilization of healthcare resources. Preoperative quantification of RV function with echocardiography has only recently been considered for RVF prediction, and RV mechanics have not been prospectively evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-centre prospective cohort study, we plan to enroll a total of 120 LVAD candidates to evaluate standard and mechanics-based echocardiographic measures of RV function, obtained within 7 days of planned LVAD surgery, for prediction of (i) RVF within 90 days; (ii) quality of life (QoL) at 90 days; and (iii) RV function recovery at 90 days post-LVAD. Our primary hypothesis is that an RV echocardiographic score will predict RVF with clinically relevant discrimination (C >0.85) and positive and negative predictive values (>80%). Our secondary hypothesis is that the RV score will predict QoL and RV recovery by 90 days. We expect that RV mechanics will provide incremental prognostic information for these outcomes. The preliminary results of an interim analysis are encouraging. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may help improve LVAD outcomes and reduce resource utilization by facilitating shared decision-making and selection for LVAD implantation, provide insights into RV function recovery, and potentially inform reassessment of LVAD timing in patients at high risk for RVF. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Despite improved outcomes and lower right ventricular failure (RVF) rates with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), RVF still occurs in 20-40% of LVAD recipients and leads to worse clinical and patient-centred outcomes and higher utilization of healthcare resources. Preoperative quantification of RV function with echocardiography has only recently been considered for RVF prediction, and RV mechanics have not been prospectively evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this single-centre prospective cohort study, we plan to enroll a total of 120 LVAD candidates to evaluate standard and mechanics-based echocardiographic measures of RV function, obtained within 7 days of planned LVAD surgery, for prediction of (i) RVF within 90 days; (ii) quality of life (QoL) at 90 days; and (iii) RV function recovery at 90 days post-LVAD. Our primary hypothesis is that an RV echocardiographic score will predict RVF with clinically relevant discrimination (C >0.85) and positive and negative predictive values (>80%). Our secondary hypothesis is that the RV score will predict QoL and RV recovery by 90 days. We expect that RV mechanics will provide incremental prognostic information for these outcomes. The preliminary results of an interim analysis are encouraging. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may help improve LVAD outcomes and reduce resource utilization by facilitating shared decision-making and selection for LVAD implantation, provide insights into RV function recovery, and potentially inform reassessment of LVAD timing in patients at high risk for RVF. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: E W Steyerberg; F E Harrell; G J Borsboom; M J Eijkemans; Y Vergouwe; J D Habbema Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: William A Zoghbi; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Elyse Foster; Paul A Grayburn; Carol D Kraft; Robert A Levine; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Catherine M Otto; Miguel A Quinones; Harry Rakowski; William J Stewart; Alan Waggoner; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: James K Kirklin; David C Naftel; Francis D Pagani; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Elizabeth D Blume; Marissa A Miller; J T Baldwin; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Joseph G Rogers; Andrew J Boyle; John B O'Connell; Douglas A Horstmanshof; Donald C Haas; Mark S Slaughter; Soon J Park; David J Farrar; Randall C Starling Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Minoo N Kavarana; Melissa S Pessin-Minsley; Jacqueline Urtecho; Katharine A Catanese; Margaret Flannery; Mehmet C Oz; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Salim Hayek; Daniel B Sims; David W Markham; Javed Butler; Andreas P Kalogeropoulos Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Louise A Burton; Deepa Sumukadas; Miles D Witham; Allan D Struthers; Marion E T McMurdo Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Aditi Nayak; Colin Neill; Robert L Kormos; Luigi Lagazzi; Indrani Halder; Charles McTiernan; Jennifer Larsen; Ana Inashvili; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Timothy N Bachman; Karen Hanley-Yanez; Dennis M McNamara; Marc A Simon Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Shane J LaRue; David S Raymer; Brian R Pierce; Michael E Nassif; Christopher T Sparrow; Justin M Vader Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 10.247