4.7 Article

Risk Assessment for Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Does the Destination Therapy Risk Score Work?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.032

关键词

left ventricular assist device; mechanical circulatory support; risk stratification

资金

  1. Thoratec Corporation
  2. Heartware

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study sought to assess the utility of the Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). Background The DTRS was developed to predict the risk of 90-day in-hospital mortality with pulsatile flow LVAD as destination therapy (DT). Despite ongoing use in patients with continuous flow devices, its utility has not been studied in such populations. Methods The DTRS was determined in 1,124 patients with the continuous flow HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD as a bridge to transplant (BTT, n = 486) and DT (n = 638) and 114 DT patients with the pulsatile flow HeartMate XVE (Thoratec Corporation). Patients were divided into risk groups based on DTRS: low (0-8), medium (9-16), and high (>16). Results The 90-day in-hospital mortality for low-, medium-, and high-risk groups was 8%, 7%, and 16%, respectively, for BTT patients; 9%, 12%, and 19%, respectively, for DT patients; and 11%, 18%, and 25%, respectively, for XVE DT patients. The high-risk groups had more than a 2-fold increased risk of mortality compared with the low-risk groups. However, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for 90-day in-hospital mortality yielded modest values ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 for the HeartMate II BTT and DT groups, respectively. Survival rates over 2 years were statistically significantly different as stratified by the 3 DTRS groups for patients implanted for DT but not for BTT. Conclusions DTRS provides poor discrimination of mortality for BTT patients and only modest discrimination for DT patients receiving continuous flow LVAD. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:xxx) (C) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据