Jennifer Cowger1, Palak Shah2, John Stulak3, Simon Maltais3, Keith D Aaronson4, James K Kirklin5, Francis D Pagani6, Christopher Salerno7. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, St Vincent Heart Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: jennifer.cowger@stvincent.org. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 3. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 6. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Division of Cardiothroacic Surgery, St Vincent Heart Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. METHODS: Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. RESULTS: Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND: Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. METHODS: Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. RESULTS: Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.
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: James K Kirklin; David C Naftel; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Francis D Pagani; Marissa A Miller; J T Baldwin; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Lynne Warner Stevenson; Francis D Pagani; James B Young; Mariell Jessup; Leslie Miller; Robert L Kormos; David C Naftel; Karen Ulisney; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; James K Kirklin Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Jennifer Cowger; Kartik Sundareswaran; Joseph G Rogers; Soon J Park; Francis D Pagani; Geetha Bhat; Brian Jaski; David J Farrar; Mark S Slaughter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Michelle M Kittleson; Amrut V Ambardekar; Lynne W Stevenson; Nisha A Gilotra; Palak Shah; Gregory A Ewald; Jennifer T Thibodeau; Josef Stehlik; Maryse Palardy; Jerry D Estep; Thomas M Cascino; J Timothy Baldwin; Neal Jeffries; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Matheos Yosef; Wendy Taddei Peters; Blair Richards; Douglas L Mann; Keith D Aaronson; Garrick C Stewart Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Manreet K Kanwar; Lisa C Lohmueller; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Robert L Kormos; Joseph G Rogers; Raymond L Benza; Joann Lindenfeld; Colleen McIlvennan; Stephen H Bailey; Srinivas Murali; James F Antaki Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Michelle M Kittleson; Palak Shah; Anuradha Lala; Rhondalyn C McLean; Salpy Pamboukian; Douglas A Horstmanshof; Jennifer Thibodeau; Keyur Shah; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Nisha A Gilotra; Wendy C Taddei-Peters; Thomas M Cascino; Blair Richards; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Neal Jeffries; Lynne W Stevenson; Douglas Mann; Keith D Aaronson; Garrick C Stewart Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Jesse F Veenis; Olivier C Manintveld; Alina A Constantinescu; Kadir Caliskan; Ozcan Birim; Jos A Bekkers; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Corstiaan A den Uil; Eric Boersma; Mattie J Lenzen; Felix Zijlstra; William T Abraham; Philip B Adamson; Jasper J Brugts Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2019-01-07