INTERMACS profiles and modifiers: Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome

Jennifer Cowger, Palak Shah, John Stulak, Simon Maltais, Keith D. Aaronson, James K. Kirklin, Francis D. Pagani, Christopher Salerno

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. Methods Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. Results Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]). Conclusions Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)440-448
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Registries
Confidence Intervals
Physician Assistants
Survival
Mortality
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Heart-Assist Devices
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research

Keywords

  • LVAD
  • mortality
  • prediction
  • temporary circulatory support

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Transplantation

Cite this

INTERMACS profiles and modifiers : Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome. / Cowger, Jennifer; Shah, Palak; Stulak, John; Maltais, Simon; Aaronson, Keith D.; Kirklin, James K.; Pagani, Francis D.; Salerno, Christopher.

In: Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Vol. 35, No. 4, 01.04.2016, p. 440-448.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cowger, Jennifer ; Shah, Palak ; Stulak, John ; Maltais, Simon ; Aaronson, Keith D. ; Kirklin, James K. ; Pagani, Francis D. ; Salerno, Christopher. / INTERMACS profiles and modifiers : Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome. In: Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2016 ; Vol. 35, No. 4. pp. 440-448.
@article{e481c3fc421243b09b66cc39145475a2,
title = "INTERMACS profiles and modifiers: Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome",
abstract = "Background Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. Methods Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. Results Respondents included 131 (62{\%}) cardiologists, 30 (14{\%}) surgeons, and 51 (24{\%}) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63{\%} assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10{\%} by research coordinators; 27{\%} by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2{\%}, 80 ± 0.7{\%}, and 84 ± 0.7{\%} (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95{\%} CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95{\%} CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95{\%} CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95{\%} CI = 1.02-1.63]). Conclusions Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.",
keywords = "LVAD, mortality, prediction, temporary circulatory support",
author = "Jennifer Cowger and Palak Shah and John Stulak and Simon Maltais and Aaronson, {Keith D.} and Kirklin, {James K.} and Pagani, {Francis D.} and Christopher Salerno",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.healun.2015.10.037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "440--448",
journal = "Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation",
issn = "1053-2498",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - INTERMACS profiles and modifiers

T2 - Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome

AU - Cowger, Jennifer

AU - Shah, Palak

AU - Stulak, John

AU - Maltais, Simon

AU - Aaronson, Keith D.

AU - Kirklin, James K.

AU - Pagani, Francis D.

AU - Salerno, Christopher

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Background Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. Methods Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. Results Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]). Conclusions Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.

AB - Background Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination. Methods Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated. Results Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]). Conclusions Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.

KW - LVAD

KW - mortality

KW - prediction

KW - temporary circulatory support

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960878397&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960878397&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.healun.2015.10.037

DO - 10.1016/j.healun.2015.10.037

M3 - Article

C2 - 26683809

AN - SCOPUS:84960878397

VL - 35

SP - 440

EP - 448

JO - Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

JF - Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

SN - 1053-2498

IS - 4

ER -