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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 440-448 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -