Suppr超能文献

比较分析既定风险评分与新型血流动力学指标在预测左心室辅助装置患者右心衰竭中的作用。

Comparative Analysis of Established Risk Scores and Novel Hemodynamic Metrics in Predicting Right Ventricular Failure in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.

出版信息

J Card Fail. 2019 Aug;25(8):620-628. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2019.02.011. Epub 2019 Feb 18.

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.

摘要

背景

左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入后右心衰竭(RVF)预示着预后不良。虽然已经开发了许多 RVF 预测模型,但对这些风险模型进行独立比较分析的却很少。

方法和结果

RVF 定义为在索引住院期间,术后使用正性肌力药>14 天,吸入性肺血管扩张剂>48 小时或计划外使用右心室机械支持。使用逻辑回归和受试者工作特征曲线对 RVF 的主要结局进行风险模型评估。在 2011 年至 2016 年期间,93 名 LVAD 患者中有完整数据,密歇根州 RVF 评分(C=0.74[95%CI0.61-0.87];P=0.0004)是唯一显示对 RVF 具有显著判别力的风险模型,与较新的风险评分(犹他州、皮特州、欧洲 MACS 评分)相比。在个体血流动力学/超声心动图指标中,术前右心室功能障碍(C=0.72[95%CI0.58-0.85];P=0.0022)也显示出对 RVF 的显著判别力。密歇根州 RVF 评分也是住院死亡率(C=0.67[95%CI0.52-0.83];P=0.0319)和 3 年生存率(Kaplan-Meier 对数秩检验 0.0135)的最佳预测指标。

结论

在外部验证分析中,表现略好但更成熟的密歇根州 RVF 评分——强调术前血流动力学不稳定和靶器官功能障碍——在预测 RVF 方面表现最佳,并与住院和长期死亡率相关。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

4
How to select a patient for LVAD.如何选择左心室辅助装置(LVAD)的患者。
Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Jul;39(Suppl 1):8-17. doi: 10.1007/s12055-022-01428-w. Epub 2022 Dec 15.

本文引用的文献

1
Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure.磁悬浮离心泵治疗心力衰竭的两年结果。
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 12;378(15):1386-1395. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800866. Epub 2018 Mar 11.
7
A new "twist" on right heart failure with left ventricular assist systems.左心室辅助系统致右心衰竭的新“扭曲”。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Jul;36(7):701-707. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2017.03.014. Epub 2017 Mar 24.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验