Predicting survival after Impella implantation in patients with cardiogenic shock: The J‐PVAD risk score
Toru Kondo,Tomo Yoshizumi,Ryota Morimoto,Takahiro Imaizumi,Shingo Kazama,Hiroaki Hiraiwa,Takahiro Okumura,Toyoaki Murohara,Masato Mutsuga
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3471
2024-09-21
European Journal of Heart Failure
Abstract:Risk prediction for cardiogenic shock patients with Impella. AP, atrial pressure; AUC, area under the curve; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; CPA, cardiopulmonary arrest; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; J‐PVAD, Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device; VA‐ECMO, veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Aims Impella has become a new option for mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS); however, prognostic models for patients after Impella are lacking. We aimed to identify the factors that predict in‐hospital mortality in patients with CS requiring Impella and develop a new risk prediction model. Methods and results We utilized the J‐PVAD registry, which includes all cases where Impella was implanted in Japan. Two‐thirds of the patients in the J‐PVAD registry were randomly assigned to the derivation cohort (n = 1701), and the other third was assigned to the validation cohort (n = 850). A backward stepwise logistic regression model was developed to identify factors associated with in‐hospital mortality. In the derivation cohort, 956 patients were discharged alive, and 745 patients (43.8%) died during hospitalization. Among 29 candidate variables, 12 were independently associated with in‐hospital mortality and were applied as components of the risk model, including age, sex, body mass index, fulminant myocarditis aetiology, cardiac arrest in hospital, baseline veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use, mean arterial pressure, lactate, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, creatinine, and albumin levels. The comparison of predicted and observed in‐hospital mortality according to the 7th quantiles using the J‐PVAD risk score showed good calibration. The area under the curve for the J‐PVAD risk score was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.78). In the validation cohort, the J‐PVAD risk score showed good calibration and discrimination ability. Conclusions The J‐PVAD risk score can be calculated using variables easily obtained in routine clinical practice. It helps the accurate stratification of mortality risk and facilitates clinical decision‐making.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?