TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of Risk Scores in Predicting Right Ventricular Failure After LVAD Implantation
AU - Mortada, Ibrahim
AU - Mhanna, Mohammed
AU - Gollapally Krishna, Shiva Raju
AU - Qadeer, Abdul
AU - Al-Abdouh, Ahmad
AU - Ruiz Duque, Ernesto
AU - Mansour, Shareef
AU - Jneid, Hani
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are central to advanced heart failure management but are complicated by right ventricular failure (RVF) in up to 40% of patients, increasing morbidity and mortality and underscoring the need for robust prediction tools. We performed a single-center retrospective study of CF-LVAD recipients from March 2009 to May 2024. Of 326 patients, 205 met inclusion criteria; RVF was defined as need for inotropes or right ventricular assist device support. We compared established RVF risk scores (Michigan, Penn/Fitzpatrick, European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support [EUROMACS], Central venous pressure, severe Right ventricular dysfunction, preoperative Intubation, severe Tricuspid regurgitation, Tachycardia [CRITT]) using receiver operating characteristic analysis, logistic regression, and internal validation. Among 205 patients, 81 (39.5%) developed post-LVAD RVF. The EUROMACS score had the highest predictive value (C-statistic 0.670, P < .001), followed by CRITT (0.653, P < .001), Penn (0.616, P = .004), and Michigan (0.606, P = .005). Youden-optimized cutoffs were derived to summarize sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Mortality analysis was performed as a secondary exploratory endpoint. Overall, discrimination of existing RVF scores remained modest. EUROMACS performed best but highlighted the need to refine models with contemporary hemodynamic and echocardiographic metrics and to pursue rigorous external validation.
AB - Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are central to advanced heart failure management but are complicated by right ventricular failure (RVF) in up to 40% of patients, increasing morbidity and mortality and underscoring the need for robust prediction tools. We performed a single-center retrospective study of CF-LVAD recipients from March 2009 to May 2024. Of 326 patients, 205 met inclusion criteria; RVF was defined as need for inotropes or right ventricular assist device support. We compared established RVF risk scores (Michigan, Penn/Fitzpatrick, European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support [EUROMACS], Central venous pressure, severe Right ventricular dysfunction, preoperative Intubation, severe Tricuspid regurgitation, Tachycardia [CRITT]) using receiver operating characteristic analysis, logistic regression, and internal validation. Among 205 patients, 81 (39.5%) developed post-LVAD RVF. The EUROMACS score had the highest predictive value (C-statistic 0.670, P < .001), followed by CRITT (0.653, P < .001), Penn (0.616, P = .004), and Michigan (0.606, P = .005). Youden-optimized cutoffs were derived to summarize sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Mortality analysis was performed as a secondary exploratory endpoint. Overall, discrimination of existing RVF scores remained modest. EUROMACS performed best but highlighted the need to refine models with contemporary hemodynamic and echocardiographic metrics and to pursue rigorous external validation.
KW - cardiology
KW - heart failure
KW - left ventricular assist devices
KW - mechanical circulatory support
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105039563042
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105039563042#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1177/00033197261453467
DO - 10.1177/00033197261453467
M3 - Article
C2 - 42165115
AN - SCOPUS:105039563042
SN - 0003-3197
JO - Angiology
JF - Angiology
ER -