Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30790625›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiac failure2019

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

Anthony E Peters, LaVone A Smith, Priscilla Ababio, Khadijah Breathett, Timothy L McMurry, Jamie L W Kennedy, Mohammad Abuannadi, James Bergin, Sula Mazimba

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiac failure, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. How to select a patient for LVAD.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023
    Review
  7. A novel metrics to predict right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anthony E PetersDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
LaVone A SmithDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Priscilla AbabioDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Khadijah BreathettDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Timothy L McMurryDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Jamie L W KennedyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mohammad AbuannadiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
James BerginDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Sula MazimbaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: sm8sd@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu.

Funding

Addressing Individual Provider Bias and Group Decision-Making in Selection of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies in Racial/Ethnic MinoritiesK01HL142848 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BREATHETT, KHADIJAH · 2018 to 2021
$858k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL142848
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRight 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

resultsRVF 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).

conclusionsIn 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.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesFemaleHeart-Assist DevicesHeart FailureHeart VentriclesHemodynamicsHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsVentricular Dysfunction, Rightmechanical circulatory supportprediction modelspreoperative end-organ dysfunctionRight heart failure

Identifiers

PMID30790625
PMCPMC6945118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.