Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Validation of clinical scores for right ventricular failure prediction after implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

  • Andreas P. Kalogeropoulos
  • , Anita Kelkar
  • , Jeremy F. Weinberger
  • , Alanna A. Morris
  • , Vasiliki V. Georgiopoulou
  • , David W. Markham
  • , Javed Butler
  • , J. David Vega
  • , Andrew L. Smith
  • Emory University
  • Stony Brook University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

112 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1595-1603
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Volume34
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Keywords

  • echocardiography
  • heart failure
  • left ventricular assist device
  • right ventricle failure
  • risk prediction model

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validation of clinical scores for right ventricular failure prediction after implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this