Performance of risk scores in predicting major bleeding in left ventricular assist device recipients: a comparative external validation.

ABSTRACT

Background: Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a crucial therapeutic option for selected end-stage heart failure patients. However, major bleeding (MB) complications postimplantation are a significant concern. Objectives: We evaluated current risk scores' predictive accuracy for MB in LVAD recipients. Methods: We conducted an observational, single-center study of LVAD recipients (HeartWare or HeartMate-3, November 2010-December 2022) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the first post-LVAD MB (according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS], and INTERMACS combined with intracranial bleeding [INTERMACS+] criteria). Mortality prior to MB was considered a competing event. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration were evaluated for the Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly score, Hepatic or Renal Disease, Ethanol Abuse, Malignancy, Older Age, Reduced Platelet Count or Function, Re-Bleeding, Hypertension, Anemia, Genetic Factors, Excessive Fall Risk and Stroke score, Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score, Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index, venous thromboembolism score, atrial fibrillation score, and Utah Bleeding Risk Score (UBRS). Results: One hundred four patients were included (median age, 64 years; female, 20.2%; HeartWare, 90.4%; HeartMate-3, 9.6%). The cumulative MB incidence was 75.7% (95% CI 65.5%-85.9%) by ISTH and INTERMACS+ criteria and 67.0% (95% CI 56.0%-78.0%) per INTERMACS criteria over a median event-free follow-up time of 1916 days (range, 59-4521). All scores had poor discriminative ability on their intended prediction timeframe. Cumulative area under the receiving operator characteristic curve ranged from 0.49 (95% CI 0.35-0.63, venous thromboembolism-BLEED) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.65, UBRS) according to ISTH and INTERMACS+ criteria and from 0.48 (95% CI 0.40-0.56, Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.65, UBRS) per INTERMACS criteria. All models showed poor calibration, largely underestimating MB risk. Conclusion: Current bleeding risk scores exhibit inadequate predictive accuracy for LVAD recipients. There is a need for an accurate risk score to identify LVAD patients at high risk of MB who may benefit from patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy.