Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Support: External Validation of UTAH Bleeding Risk Score.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.3390/jcdd12030105
Giuseppe Vadalà, Cristina Madaudo, Alessandra Fontana, Vincenzo Sucato, Gioele Bicelli, Laura Maniscalco, Antonio Luca Maria Parlati, Giovanna Panarello, Sergio Sciacca, Michele Pilato, Manlio Cipriani, Alfredo Ruggero Galassi
{"title":"Gastrointestinal Bleeding During Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Support: External Validation of UTAH Bleeding Risk Score.","authors":"Giuseppe Vadalà, Cristina Madaudo, Alessandra Fontana, Vincenzo Sucato, Gioele Bicelli, Laura Maniscalco, Antonio Luca Maria Parlati, Giovanna Panarello, Sergio Sciacca, Michele Pilato, Manlio Cipriani, Alfredo Ruggero Galassi","doi":"10.3390/jcdd12030105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. The UTAH bleeding risk score (UBRS) is the only dedicated GIB prediction model, but its efficacy has not been confirmed in an external validation cohort. Furthermore, the reliability of other bleeding risk scores, such as ARC-HBR and HASBLED, has never been tested in this specific population. This study aims to validate the UBRS and compare its accuracy with the ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Major adverse events (MAEs) and bleeding events of 75 consecutive patients who had undergone LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2021 at a referral hospital for a heart transplant were retrospectively analyzed. The accuracy of the UBRS, ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores was evaluated using a ROC curve model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At a mean follow-up of 905.9 ± 724 days, 58 (77.3%) patients had an MAE and 28 (37.3%) had a major bleeding event. Out of the 39 major bleeding events, the majority were GI (43%) and intracranial bleeding (33.3%). Compared with patients without major bleeding, those who experienced major bleeding showed a lower survival probability, regardless of the nature of the bleeding (GIB vs. other bleeding events). The UBRS effectively stratified the bleeding risk with an AUC of 0.86. In contrast, the ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores demonstrated lower discriminatory power, with AUCs of 0.61 and 0.52, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UBRS accuracy was confirmed in our study population. Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common life-threatening complication and one of the main causes of re-hospitalization during VAD support, leading to a lower patient survival probability.</p>","PeriodicalId":15197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"12 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12030105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. The UTAH bleeding risk score (UBRS) is the only dedicated GIB prediction model, but its efficacy has not been confirmed in an external validation cohort. Furthermore, the reliability of other bleeding risk scores, such as ARC-HBR and HASBLED, has never been tested in this specific population. This study aims to validate the UBRS and compare its accuracy with the ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores.

Methods: Major adverse events (MAEs) and bleeding events of 75 consecutive patients who had undergone LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2021 at a referral hospital for a heart transplant were retrospectively analyzed. The accuracy of the UBRS, ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores was evaluated using a ROC curve model.

Results: At a mean follow-up of 905.9 ± 724 days, 58 (77.3%) patients had an MAE and 28 (37.3%) had a major bleeding event. Out of the 39 major bleeding events, the majority were GI (43%) and intracranial bleeding (33.3%). Compared with patients without major bleeding, those who experienced major bleeding showed a lower survival probability, regardless of the nature of the bleeding (GIB vs. other bleeding events). The UBRS effectively stratified the bleeding risk with an AUC of 0.86. In contrast, the ARC-HBR and HASBLED scores demonstrated lower discriminatory power, with AUCs of 0.61 and 0.52, respectively.

Conclusions: UBRS accuracy was confirmed in our study population. Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common life-threatening complication and one of the main causes of re-hospitalization during VAD support, leading to a lower patient survival probability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
长期左心室辅助装置支持期间消化道出血:犹他州出血风险评分的外部验证。
背景:胃肠道出血(GIB)是左心室辅助装置(LVAD)支持的常见并发症。犹他出血风险评分(UBRS)是唯一专用的GIB预测模型,但其有效性尚未在外部验证队列中得到证实。此外,其他出血风险评分的可靠性,如ARC-HBR和HASBLED,从未在这一特定人群中进行过测试。本研究旨在验证UBRS,并将其与ARC-HBR和HASBLED评分的准确性进行比较。方法:回顾性分析2010年至2021年在一家转诊医院接受心脏移植的连续75例LVAD植入患者的主要不良事件(MAEs)和出血事件。采用ROC曲线模型评价UBRS、ARC-HBR和HASBLED评分的准确性。结果:在平均905.9±724天的随访中,58例(77.3%)患者发生MAE, 28例(37.3%)患者发生大出血。在39例大出血事件中,大多数是胃肠道出血(43%)和颅内出血(33.3%)。与无大出血的患者相比,无论出血的性质如何(GIB与其他出血事件),大出血患者的生存概率都较低。UBRS有效地将出血风险分层,AUC为0.86。相比之下,ARC-HBR和HASBLED得分表现出较低的歧视能力,auc分别为0.61和0.52。结论:UBRS的准确性在我们的研究人群中得到了证实。胃肠出血是常见的危及生命的并发症,也是VAD支持期间再次住院的主要原因之一,导致患者生存概率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
381
期刊最新文献
Effect of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nurse-Led Secondary Prevention After Acute Coronary Syndrome: Bridging the Gender Gap in Cardiovascular Outcomes-A Sub-Analysis of the BEAT-HF Study. The Left Axillary Artery as an Alternative Inflow Source in Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Safety, Feasibility, and Mid-Term Outcomes. Saudi Secondary Prevention Survey Study in Patients with Prior Acute Myocardial Infarction (4S Registry): Study Design and Pilot Phase Results. Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1