Anthony E Peters1, LaVone A Smith2, Priscilla Ababio2, Khadijah Breathett3, Timothy L McMurry4, Jamie L W Kennedy2, Mohammad Abuannadi2, James Bergin2, Sula Mazimba5. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: sm8sd@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure (RVF) portends poor outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Although numerous RVF predictive models have been developed, there are few independent comparative analyses of these risk models. METHODS AND RESULTS: RVF was defined as use of inotropes for >14 days, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators for >48 hours or unplanned right ventricular mechanical support postoperatively during the index hospitalization. Risk models were evaluated for the primary outcome of RVF by means of logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. Among 93 LVAD patients with complete data from 2011 to 2016, the Michigan RVF score (C = 0.74 [95% CI 0.61-0.87]; P = .0004) was the only risk model to demonstrate significant discrimination for RVF, compared with newer risk scores (Utah, Pitt, EuroMACS). Among individual hemodynamic/echocardiographic metrics, preoperative right ventricular dysfunction (C = 0.72 [95% CI 0.58-0.85]; P = .0022) also demonstrated significant discrimination of RVF. The Michigan RVF score was also the best predictor of in-hospital mortality (C = 0.67 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]; P = .0319) and 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier log-rank 0.0135). CONCLUSIONS: In external validation analysis, the more established Michigan RVF score-which emphasizes preoperative hemodynamic instability and target end-organ dysfunction-performed best, albeit modestly, in predicting RVF and demonstrated association with in-hospital and long-term mortality.
BACKGROUND:Right ventricular failure (RVF) portends poor outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Although numerous RVF predictive models have been developed, there are few independent comparative analyses of these risk models. METHODS AND RESULTS: RVF was defined as use of inotropes for >14 days, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators for >48 hours or unplanned right ventricular mechanical support postoperatively during the index hospitalization. Risk models were evaluated for the primary outcome of RVF by means of logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. Among 93 LVAD patients with complete data from 2011 to 2016, the Michigan RVF score (C = 0.74 [95% CI 0.61-0.87]; P = .0004) was the only risk model to demonstrate significant discrimination for RVF, compared with newer risk scores (Utah, Pitt, EuroMACS). Among individual hemodynamic/echocardiographic metrics, preoperative right ventricular dysfunction (C = 0.72 [95% CI 0.58-0.85]; P = .0022) also demonstrated significant discrimination of RVF. The Michigan RVF score was also the best predictor of in-hospital mortality (C = 0.67 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]; P = .0319) and 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier log-rank 0.0135). CONCLUSIONS: In external validation analysis, the more established Michigan RVF score-which emphasizes preoperative hemodynamic instability and target end-organ dysfunction-performed best, albeit modestly, in predicting RVF and demonstrated association with in-hospital and long-term mortality.
Authors: Nicholas C Dang; Veli K Topkara; Michelle Mercando; Joy Kay; Kurt H Kruger; Michael S Aboodi; Mehmet C Oz; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-12-09 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Stavros G Drakos; Lindsay Janicki; Benjamin D Horne; Abdallah G Kfoury; Bruce B Reid; Stephen Clayson; Kenneth Horton; Francois Haddad; Dean Y Li; Dale G Renlund; Patrick W Fisher Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-02-13 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: James K Kirklin; Francis D Pagani; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Elizabeth D Blume; Susan L Myers; Marissa A Miller; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young; David C Naftel Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Robert L Kormos; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Francis D Pagani; Stuart D Russell; Ranjit John; Leslie W Miller; Todd Massey; Carmelo A Milano; Nader Moazami; Kartik S Sundareswaran; David J Farrar Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Christopher T Sparrow; Michael E Nassif; David S Raymer; Eric Novak; Shane J LaRue; Joel D Schilling Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: J Raymond Fitzpatrick; John R Frederick; William Hiesinger; Vivian M Hsu; Ryan C McCormick; Elliott D Kozin; Carine M Laporte; Mary Lou O'Hara; Elan Howell; Deborah Dougherty; Jeffrey E Cohen; Kevin W Southerland; Jessica L Howard; E Carter Paulson; Michael A Acker; Rohinton J Morris; Y Joseph Woo Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Natasha A Loghmanpour; Robert L Kormos; Manreet K Kanwar; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Srinivas Murali; James F Antaki Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 12.035
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