Key result
The newly developed CABDES Score predicted posttransplant graft failure with an area under the curve of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.72), improving discrimination in intermediate to moderate risk patients.
Why the study?
Existing posttransplant survival risk models have not been validated in a large European cohort, which is critical given the planned change of the Eurotransplant allocation system to a scoring system.
Does a newly adjusted risk score (CABDES) improve prediction of post-heart transplant graft failure compared to existing models in a European cohort?
Cohort (n=761)
Yes
Does a newly adjusted risk score (CABDES) improve prediction of post-heart transplant graft failure compared to existing models in a European cohort?
A newly developed CABDES score improves the prediction of post-heart transplant graft failure in European patients compared to existing models like IMPACT, Meld-XI, and RSS.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Existing models may apply to Eurotransplant recipients; leaves open prospective validation before allocation changes.
Background Several risk models target the issue of posttransplant survival, but none of them have been validated in a large European cohort. This aspect is important, in a time of the planned change of the Eurotransplant allocation system to a scoring system. Material and Methods Data of 761 heart transplant recipients from the Eurotransplant region with a total follow up of 5027 patient-years were analyzed. We assessed 30-day to 10-year freedom from graft failure. Existing post-transplant mortality risk models, IMPACT, Meld-XI and Columbia Risk Stratification Score were (RSS) were evaluated. A new risk model was created and the predictive accuracy was compared with the existing risk scores, with a focus on LVAD patients. Results Thirty-day, 1-year, 5-year and 10-year rates of freedom from graft failure were 78.3±1.5%, 68.8±1.71%, 59.1±1.8% and 44.1±1.9. The 1-year incidence of graft failure varied from 14.1% to 50% (RSS), from 22.9% to 57.1 (IMPACT) and from 24.9% to 42.6% using MELD-XI. Our newly adjusted risk score showed an improved area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.72) with better discrimination in the intermediate to moderate risk cohort (CABDES Score). Conclusion IMPACT, Meld-XI and RSS were suitable to predict posttransplant graft failure only in a high and low risk cohort. CABDES Score, might be an alternative scoring system, with donor age and eGFR beeing the strongest predictors. Implementation of the IMPACT score within the new Eurotransplant Cardiac Allocation Score for patient prioritization for heart transplantation, should be reevaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sargut et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Heart transplant (n=761). CABDES Score vs. IMPACT, Meld-XI, and Columbia Risk Stratification Score (RSS) was evaluated on Predictive accuracy for posttransplant graft failure (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.64-0.72). The newly developed CABDES Score predicted posttransplant graft failure with an area under the curve of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.72), improving discrimination in intermediate to moderate risk patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: