Dataset Information

The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients.

ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the Heartmate Risk Score (HMRS) and its potential benefits in clinical practice.The HMRS has been shown to correlate with mortality in the cohort of patients enrolled in the Heartmate II trials, but its validity in unselected, "real world" populations remains unclear.This study identified a cohort of 269 consecutive patients who received a Heartmate II left ventricular assist device at our institution, the Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, between June 2005 and June 2013. Ninety-day and 2-year mortality rates, as well as frequency of several morbid events, were compared by retrospectively assigned HMRS category groups. The analysis was repeated within the subgroup of INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) class 1 patients.Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the HMRS correlated with 90-day mortality with an area under the curve of 0.70. Stratification in low, mid, and high HMRS groups identified patients with increasing hazard of 90-day mortality, increasing long-term mortality, increasing rate of gastrointestinal bleeding events, and increasing median number of days spent in the hospital in the first year post implant. Within INTERMACS class 1 patients, those in the highest HMRS group were found to have a relative risk of 90-day mortality 5.7 times higher than those in the lowest HMRS group (39.1% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.029).HMRS is a valid clinical tool to stratify risk of morbidity and mortality after implant of Heartmate II devices in unselected patients and can be used to predict short-term mortality risk in INTERMACS class 1 patients.

SUBMITTER: Adamo L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4767256 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients.

Adamo Luigi L Nassif Michael M Tibrewala Anjan A Novak Eric E Vader Justin J Silvestry Scott C SC Itoh Akinobu A Ewald Gregory A GA Mann Douglas L DL LaRue Shane J SJ

JACC. Heart failure 20150311 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study evaluated the Heartmate Risk Score (HMRS) and its potential benefits in clinical practice.<h4>Background</h4>The HMRS has been shown to correlate with mortality in the cohort of patients enrolled in the Heartmate II trials, but its validity in unselected, "real world" populations remains unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>This study identified a cohort of 269 consecutive patients who received a Heartmate II left ventricular assist device at our institution, the Barnes-Jewish H ...[more]

PMID: 25770410

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (Abbott, Inc, Chicago, Ill) is a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal implantable pump used to treat patients with chronic heart failure. The MOMENTUM (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3) trial demonstrated that patients treated with the HM3 experienced reduced need for reoperation for LVAD replacement compared with a control group receiving an axial flow design, Heartmate II (Abbott, Inc). However, there are few reports of using HM3 as the replacement pump in patients who already are supported by a durable LVAD and experience a device-related complication necessitating replacement.MethodsAn institutional LVAD database was used to identify 19 consecutive patients who underwent pump replacement to HM3 (group 1) versus 85 consecutive control patients who underwent pump replacement to either Heartmate II or HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) (group 2), at a single institution from January 2010 to August 2018. Patient baseline characteristic and outcomes were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. The primary endpoint was a composite of freedom from death or need for another replacement surgery.ResultsThere was no difference between the groups in heart failure etiology, indication for replacement, as well as the average days on the previous pump or the type of previous pump. The HM3 group did have a significantly greater body mass index (37 vs 31.6 P = .01), a greater number of previous LVAD implants (36.8% vs 5.9%, had 2 previous LVADs, P < .001), and a greater number of previous sternotomies (31.6% vs 7.1%, had 3 previous sternotomies, P = .001). No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative adverse event rates. With regards to the primary endpoint, the patients with HM3 replacements (group 1) versus group 2 experienced significantly greater freedom from either death or need for another replacement during the follow-up period (P = .039). During follow-up, there were no thrombosis events for the patients who received replacement with HM3.ConclusionsLVAD replacement with HM3 can be performed safely and may be considered as the pump of choice in patients requiring LVAD replacement.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough anticoagulation therapy is mandated after implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), postoperative bleedings and reoperations occur relatively frequently and are associated with worse outcomes. We evaluated the use of a conservative postoperative anticoagulation protocol in patients implanted with a HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD.MethodsIn a single-centre retrospective analysis of postoperative outcomes after HM3 LVAD implantation, a standard (old) anticoagulation protocol (i.e. early, full-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular weight heparin and overlapping vitamin K antagonist) was compared with a new conservative anticoagulation protocol (i.e. slow initiation of vitamin K antagonists without overlapping heparin). Main outcomes were changes in international normalised ratio (INR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), bleeding and/or tamponade events requiring reoperation, length of stay and adverse events.ResultsIn total, 73 patients (48 in old vs 25 in new protocol group) were evaluated. Mean age was 56 years (standard deviation 13) and most patients (78%) were males. Changes in INR and LDH in the first 14 days were similar in both groups (p = 0.50 and p = 0.997 for interaction, respectively). Number of bleeding/tamponade events requiring reoperation was lower in the new than in the old protocol group (4% vs 33%, p = 0.005). Postoperative 30-day mortality was similar, and we observed no thromboembolic events. Median (25th-75th percentiles) total length of postoperative hospital stay (27 (25-41) vs 21 (19-27) days, p < 0.001) and length of intensive care unit stay (5 (2-9) vs 2 (2-5) days, p = 0.022) were significantly shorter in the new protocol group.ConclusionThese retrospective data suggest that conservative slow initiation of anticoagulation therapy after HM3 LVAD implantation is associated with less bleeding/tamponade events requiring reoperation, a similar safety profile and a shorter duration of stay than the currently advised standard anticoagulation protocol.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation across a range of center surgical volumes.BackgroundIn order for a center to qualify for reimbursement, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires it to implant ≥10 LVADs or total artificial hearts over a 3-year period. The impact of center LVAD surgical volumes on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly scrutinized.MethodsCenter volumes were provided for 7,416 patients undergoing LVAD implantation who were enrolled in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). Center LVAD volume was categorized as either very low (≤10 implants/year, n = 617), low (11 to 30 implants/year, n = 2,561), medium (31 to 50 implants/year, n = 2,458), or high (>50 implants/year, n = 1,750). The main outcome of interest was patient survival based on center volume derived from Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression.ResultsOverall survival was associated with center volume (p = 0.003), as follows: 71 ± 1.8% (very low volume), 81 ± 0.8% (low volume), 83 ± 0.8% (medium volume), and 79 ± 1.0% (high volume) at 1 year. Compared with medium volume centers, the 90-day mortality was higher in very low volume (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35; p = 0.04) and high volume (OR: 1.28; p = 0.018) VAD centers. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 1.56), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.21), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.30) for very low, low, and high volume centers, respectively. Center volume did not predict mortality (p = 0.25; n = 3,688) in INTERMACS profile 1 patients (patients who had sustained cardiogenic shock) and profile 2 patients (patients with progressive hemodynamic decline despite inotropes).ConclusionsCenter volume correlates with post-VAD survival, with worse survival noted at very-low volume centers. These findings suggest that current U.S. VAD center standards warrant reconsideration.

Dataset Information

The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients.

Publications

The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets