Abstract 4124267: Comparison of Right Ventricular Failure Prediction Models to Predict Right Ventricular Assist Device (RVAD) After HeartMate3 Implantation

Introduction: The requirement for right ventricular-assisted device (RVAD) implantation portends poor outcomes after left ventricular-assisted device (LVAD) implantation. We investigate RVF prediction models to help prediction of RV failure requiring RVAD implantation after centrifugal-flow LVAD HeartMate3 (HM3) placement. Methods: A total of 124 patients who underwent HM3 implantation at our institution from 2015-2023 were included in our analysis. We collected clinical variables used in EUROMACS RVF Risk Score (Circulation 2018), Utah Model (Am J Cardiology 2010), Michigan RVF Risk Score (JACC 2008), and CRITT (ATS 2013). Baseline scoring systems were compared with our cohort of patients with and without RVAD implantation after HM3 placement with ROC Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistical analysis. In addition, we investigated the pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) as a predictor for RV failure requiring RVAD. Results: There were 17 patients (13.7%) who underwent RVAD implantation after HM3 placement. Patients who required RVAD implant had worse survival (p = 0.037). The EUROMACS score differentiated those patients who required RVAD from those who did not (AUC: 0.66; 95% C.I: 0.51-0.81). In contrast, CRITT (AUC: 0.64; 95% C.I: 0.49-0.78), Michigan score (AUC: 0.37; 95% C.I: 0.25-0.51), and Utah (AUC: 0.53; 95% C.I: 0.40-0.68) scores did not differentiate those who required RVAD. PAPi was significantly lower in patients requiring RVAD (2.5±1.2 vs 3.9±3.0, p=0.001). Also, even as a single parameter, PAPi had an AUC of 0.63 (95% C.I: 0.50-0.76). Conclusion: RVAD implantation is associated with high early mortality. Existing RVF prediction models were not able to predict future RVAD requirements with high AUC, with the EUROMACS system having the only statistical significance. There is a lack of a strong predictive model for RV failure in HM3. Future efforts are needed to establish predictors for RV failure requiring RVAD implants in the HM3 population, especially utilizing novel hemodynamic markers such as PAPi.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4124267
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4124267: Comparison of Right Ventricular Failure Prediction Models to Predict Right Ventricular Assist Device (RVAD) After HeartMate3 Implantation

Chase T. Lewellen, Jason Feliberti, Debbie Rinde‐Hoffman, Benjamin Mackie et al.
Circulation
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Abstract 4124267: Comparison of Right Ventricular Failure Prediction Models to Predict Right Ventricular Assist Device (RVAD) After HeartMate3 Implantation

Chase T. Lewellen, Jason Feliberti, Debbie Rinde‐Hoffman, Benjamin Mackie, Dae Hyun Lee, Ricardo Restrepo‐Jaramillo, Zhiyu Liu, Jason Lee, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira, Ioana Dumitru, Robby Wu
article en

Abstract

Introduction: The requirement for right ventricular-assisted device (RVAD) implantation portends poor outcomes after left ventricular-assisted device (LVAD) implantation. We investigate RVF prediction models to help prediction of RV failure requiring RVAD implantation after centrifugal-flow LVAD HeartMate3 (HM3) placement. Methods: A total of 124 patients who underwent HM3 implantation at our institution from 2015-2023 were included in our analysis. We collected clinical variables used in EUROMACS RVF Risk Score (Circulation 2018), Utah Model (Am J Cardiology 2010), Michigan RVF Risk Score (JACC 2008), and CRITT (ATS 2013). Baseline scoring systems were compared with our cohort of patients with and without RVAD implantation after HM3 placement with ROC Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistical analysis. In addition, we investigated the pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) as a predictor for RV failure requiring RVAD. Results: There were 17 patients (13.7%) who underwent RVAD implantation after HM3 placement. Patients who required RVAD implant had worse survival (p = 0.037). The EUROMACS score differentiated those patients who required RVAD from those who did not (AUC: 0.66; 95% C.I: 0.51-0.81). In contrast, CRITT (AUC: 0.64; 95% C.I: 0.49-0.78), Michigan score (AUC: 0.37; 95% C.I: 0.25-0.51), and Utah (AUC: 0.53; 95% C.I: 0.40-0.68) scores did not differentiate those who required RVAD. PAPi was significantly lower in patients requiring RVAD (2.5±1.2 vs 3.9±3.0, p=0.001). Also, even as a single parameter, PAPi had an AUC of 0.63 (95% C.I: 0.50-0.76). Conclusion: RVAD implantation is associated with high early mortality. Existing RVF prediction models were not able to predict future RVAD requirements with high AUC, with the EUROMACS system having the only statistical significance. There is a lack of a strong predictive model for RV failure in HM3. Future efforts are needed to establish predictors for RV failure requiring RVAD implants in the HM3 population, especially utilizing novel hemodynamic markers such as PAPi.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
University of South Florida (US), Tampa General Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.