INTERMACS profiles and modifiers: Heterogeneity of patient classification and the impact of modifiers on predicting patient outcome
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 28, 2026

Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence
Published on: October 25, 2011
Jennifer Cowger1, Palak Shah2, John Stulak3
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, St Vincent Heart Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Background:
Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patient profiles and modifiers are descriptors of patient illness severity before durable ventricular assist device implantation. It is unknown how individual U.S. institutions and practitioners assign profiles and if modifiers improve on risk discrimination.
Methods:
Respondents (n = 212) to a web-based survey answered questions about the INTERMACS profile assignment process in their institution. For 5 hypothetical clinical scenarios, respondents assigned the best profile. The INTERMACS registry (2009-2014) was queried, and hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality between profiles as well as based on the presence of temporary circulatory support (TCS), frequent flyer (FF), or arrhythmia modifiers was calculated.
Results:
Respondents included 131 (62%) cardiologists, 30 (14%) surgeons, and 51 (24%) physician extenders/coordinators. Institutional INTERMACS profile assignment was variable (63% assigned by cardiologists/surgeons; 10% by research coordinators; 27% by physician extenders). Profile assignments in hypothetical patient scenarios were heterogeneous, especially for contiguous profiles. The 1-year survivals for Profiles 1, 2, and 3 were 77 ± 1.2%, 80 ± 0.7%, and 84 ± 0.7% (p < 0.001). Although Profile 1 patients had worse adjusted survival than Profile 3 patients (p = 0.001), survival for Profile 1 patients vs Profile 2 patients was similar (adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.88-1.12]). The TCS (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.94-1.2]) and arrhythmia (adjusted HR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.97-1.2]) modifiers were not predictive of mortality, but the FF modifier was (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.02-1.63]).
Conclusions:
Substantial heterogeneity exists in the process and assignment of INTERMACS profiles. This heterogeneity could affect mortality estimates used for risk stratification. Only the FF modifier appears to improve risk discrimination beyond that of known risk factors. Adding objective descriptors may reduce profile heterogeneity.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
07:42An In vitro Model to Study Heterogeneity of Human Macrophage Differentiation and Polarization
Published on: June 12, 2013
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Multicompartment Models: Overview
These models offer a more comprehensive representation of drug behavior in the body than one-compartment models. They accommodate the complexity of drug distribution,...
Pharmacogenetic Phenotypes: Alterations in Pharmacokinetics, Drug Targets and Biologic Milieu
Classification of Illness
An illness is a response to a disease in which the person's level of functioning is changed compared with a previous level. The general classification of illness includes acute and chronic.
Acute illness is severe...
Pharmacogenetics of Drug Metabolism: Overview
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis