Luigi Adamo1, Yuanyuan Tang2, Michael E Nassif3, Eric Novak1, Philip G Jones2, Shane LaRue1, John A Spertus4, Douglas L Mann5. 1. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. 3. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. 4. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri; University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: dmann@dom.wustl.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the performance of the HeartMate Risk Score (HMRS) in a large multicenter cohort, with a focus on its performance as a function of disease severity. BACKGROUND: The HMRS has been proposed as a simple tool for risk stratification of LVAD recipients, but subsequent studies have challenged its validity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal, comparative study using the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) database. The HMRS was calculated for each patient and its association with mortality was assessed using Cox models, including a pre-specified interaction by INTERMACS profile groups (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs 4+). RESULTS: Among 10,847 patients with a mean age of 57.0 ± 12.9 years, 78.9 % were male; and 14.1%, 37.4%, 30.4%, and 18.2% were in INTERMACS profile groups 1, 2, 3, and ≥4, respectively. The HMRS showed moderate discrimination for both short-term (90-day, C-index 0.62) and long-term (2-years, C-index 0.60) mortality, with no significant difference between axial and centrifugal devices. Patients in the highest HMRS group had a relative risk of 90-day mortality 2.8 times greater than those in the lowest HMRS group (13.0% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001). Importantly, the relative risks of higher HMRS scores were similar across INTERMACS profile groups, with subgroups of patients in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2 having comparable or lower mortality than some in INTERMACS profile 4+. CONCLUSIONS: The HMRS is a valid means of risk-stratifying patients across all INTERMACS profiles and may be superior to traditional INTERMACS classification. Risk stratification with the HMRS showed that patients within each INTERMACS profile groups have a wide spectrum of mortality risk and low INTERMACS profiles should therefore not be considered a contraindication to mechanical support. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the performance of the HeartMate Risk Score (HMRS) in a large multicenter cohort, with a focus on its performance as a function of disease severity. BACKGROUND: The HMRS has been proposed as a simple tool for risk stratification of LVAD recipients, but subsequent studies have challenged its validity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal, comparative study using the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) database. The HMRS was calculated for each patient and its association with mortality was assessed using Cox models, including a pre-specified interaction by INTERMACS profile groups (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs 4+). RESULTS: Among 10,847 patients with a mean age of 57.0 ± 12.9 years, 78.9 % were male; and 14.1%, 37.4%, 30.4%, and 18.2% were in INTERMACS profile groups 1, 2, 3, and ≥4, respectively. The HMRS showed moderate discrimination for both short-term (90-day, C-index 0.62) and long-term (2-years, C-index 0.60) mortality, with no significant difference between axial and centrifugal devices. Patients in the highest HMRS group had a relative risk of 90-day mortality 2.8 times greater than those in the lowest HMRS group (13.0% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001). Importantly, the relative risks of higher HMRS scores were similar across INTERMACS profile groups, with subgroups of patients in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2 having comparable or lower mortality than some in INTERMACS profile 4+. CONCLUSIONS: The HMRS is a valid means of risk-stratifying patients across all INTERMACS profiles and may be superior to traditional INTERMACS classification. Risk stratification with the HMRS showed that patients within each INTERMACS profile groups have a wide spectrum of mortality risk and low INTERMACS profiles should therefore not be considered a contraindication to mechanical support. Copyright Â
Authors: Corstiaan A den Uil; Giorgia Galli; Lucia S Jewbali; Kadir Caliskan; Olivier C Manintveld; Jasper J Brugts; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Mattie J Lenzen; Eric Boersma; Alina A Constantinescu Journal: Cardiology Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 1.869
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: Byron C Jaeger; Ryan Cantor; Venkata Sthanam; Rongbing Xie; James K Kirklin; Ramaraju Rudraraju Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-09-14
Authors: Kristen M Tecson; Brian Lima; Andy Y Lee; Fayez S Raza; Grace Ching; Cheng-Han Lee; Joost Felius; Ronald D Baxter; Sasha Still; Justin D G Collier; Shelley A Hall; Susan M Joseph Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.501