Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Yuksekova Hospital, Hakkari, Turkey.
J Card Surg. 2020 Nov;35(11):2965-2973. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14952. Epub 2020 Aug 16.
Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Prediction of this clinical situation in LVAD patients with different clinical scores is still an enigma. The aim of this study is to analyze the predictive power of clinical parameters and risk scores and their combinations to discriminate RVF after LVAD implantation.
A retrospective, single center review of 71 patients who underwent continuous flow-LVAD implantation between September 2013 and September 2016, was performed. RVF was defined as need for RVAD and/or administration of inotropic agents more than 14 days after LVAD implantation. Patients with and without RVF were divided into two groups and predictive power of the nine parameters (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), Michigan score, Pennsylvania score, central venous pressure/pulmonary artery wedge pressure ratio (CVP/PCWP), and right ventricular stroke work index, pulmonary artery pulsatility index, CRITT score, ALMA score, European registry for patients with mechanical circulatory support (EUROMACS) right heart failure model and their combinations were analyzed to predict postoperative RVF.
Of 71 patients, 21 had RVF after implantation. For the variables that can be used to discriminate between RVF and non-RVF groups, the diagnostic performance of the best cut-off points and tests was obtained using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Discrimination analysis was performed to determine the combinations of tests. For all single risk scores and parameters; the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was below 0.7 which is considered to be a poor level of discrimination except EUROMACS score (AUC: 0.789, P < .001) and CRITT score (AUC: 0.739, P = .004). AUC for the combination of TAPSE and Pennsylvania score was 0.722, combination of Michigan and Pennsylvania scores represented AUC of 0.732 in the analysis. The combination of TAPSE + Pennsylvania score was found to have the highest sensitivity (85%), whereas TAPSE + Michigan score + CVP/PCWP appeared as the most specific (97%) combination.
EUROMACS and CRITT scores predict RVF with high discrimination after LVAD implantation. Although, no other single test predicts RVF ideally, combination of risk scores and parameters discriminate RVF acceptably.
右心衰竭(RVF)是左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入后发病率和死亡率的主要原因。不同临床评分的 LVAD 患者对这种临床情况的预测仍然是一个谜。本研究的目的是分析临床参数和风险评分及其组合对 LVAD 植入后 RVF 的预测能力。
回顾性分析了 2013 年 9 月至 2016 年 9 月期间接受连续流动-LVAD 植入的 71 例患者。RVF 定义为 LVAD 植入后 14 天以上需要 RVAD 和/或使用正性肌力药物。将有和没有 RVF 的患者分为两组,并分析了 9 个参数(三尖瓣环平面收缩期位移(TAPSE)、密歇根评分、宾夕法尼亚评分、中心静脉压/肺动脉楔压比(CVP/PCWP)、右室射血工作指数、肺动脉搏动指数、CRITT 评分、ALMA 评分、欧洲机械循环支持患者登记处(EUROMACS)右心衰竭模型及其组合)的预测能力,以预测术后 RVF。
71 例患者中,21 例植入后发生 RVF。对于可以区分 RVF 和非 RVF 组的变量,使用接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线分析获得了最佳截断点和测试的诊断性能。进行判别分析以确定测试组合。对于所有单一风险评分和参数;ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)均低于 0.7,被认为是一种较差的鉴别水平,除了 EUROMACS 评分(AUC:0.789,P <.001)和 CRITT 评分(AUC:0.739,P =.004)。TAPSE 和宾夕法尼亚评分组合的 AUC 为 0.722,密歇根和宾夕法尼亚评分组合的 AUC 为 0.732。TAPSE + 宾夕法尼亚评分组合的敏感性最高(85%),而 TAPSE + 密歇根评分 + CVP/PCWP 组合的特异性最高(97%)。
EUROMACS 和 CRITT 评分对 LVAD 植入后 RVF 的预测具有较高的鉴别力。尽管没有其他单一测试能够理想地预测 RVF,但风险评分和参数的组合可以接受地鉴别 RVF。