Search

Study Objective: We assess the value of the Barthel Index (BI) in predicting 30-day mortality risk among patients with acute heart failure who are attending the emergency department (ED)., Methods: We selected 9,098 acute heart failure patients from the Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments registry who had BI score available both at baseline and the ED visit. Patients' data were collected from 41 Spanish hospitals during four 1- to 2-month periods between 2009 and 2016. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the association between 30-day mortality and BI score. c Statistics were used to estimate their prognostic value., Results: The mean baseline BI score was 79.4 (SD 24.6) and the mean ED BI score was 65.3 (SD 29.1). Acute functional decline (≥5-point decrease between baseline BI and ED BI score) was observed in 5,771 patients (53.4%). Within 30 days of the ED visit, 905 patients (9.9%) died. There was a steep inverse gradient in 30-day mortality risk for baseline BI and ED BI score. For instance, compared with BI score=100, a BI score of 50 to 55 doubled the mortality risk both at baseline and the ED visit. At the ED visit, a BI score of 0 to 5 carried a 5-fold increase in risk after adjustment for other risk predictors. In comparison with baseline BI score, ED BI score consistently provided greater discrimination. Neither baseline BI score nor the change in BI score from baseline to the ED visit added further prognostic value to the ED BI score., Conclusion: Functional status assessed by the BI score at the ED visit is a strong predictor of 30-day mortality in acute heart failure patients, with higher predictive value than baseline BI score and acute functional decline. Routine recording of BI score at the ED visit may help in decisionmaking and health care planning., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: The MEESSI scale stratifies acute heart failure (AHF) patients at the emergency department (ED) according to the 30-day mortality risk. We validated the MEESSI risk score in a new cohort of Spanish patients to assess its accuracy in stratifying patients by risk and to compare its performance in different settings., Methods: We included consecutive patients diagnosed with AHF in 30 EDs during January and February 2016. The MEESSI score was calculated for each patient. The c-statistic measured the discriminatory capacity to predict 30-day mortality of the full MEESSI model and secondary models. Further comparisons were made among subgroups of patients from university and community hospitals, EDs with high-, medium- or low-activity and EDs that recruited or not patients in the original MEESSI derivation cohort., Results: We analyzed 4711 patients (university/community hospitals: 3811/900; high-/medium-/low-activity EDs: 2695/1479/537; EDs participating/not participating in the previous MEESSI derivation study: 3892/819). The distribution of patients according to the MEESSI risk categories was: 1673 (35.5%) low risk, 2023 (42.9%) intermediate risk, 530 (11.3%) high risk and 485 (10.3%) very high risk, with 30-day mortality of 2.0%, 7.8%, 17.9%, and 41.4%, respectively. The c-statistic for the full model was 0.810 (95%CI, 0.790-0.830), ranging from 0.731 to 0.785 for the subsequent secondary models. The discriminatory capacity of the MEESSI risk score was similar among subgroups of hospital type, ED activity, and original recruiter EDs., Conclusions: The MEESSI risk score successfully stratifies AHF patients at the ED according to the 30-day mortality risk, potentially helping clinicians in the decision-making process for hospitalizing patients., (Copyright © 2018 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. All rights reserved.)

Background: The MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with AHF) score was developed to predict 30-day mortality in patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF) to emergency departments (EDs) in Spain. Whether it performs well in other countries is unknown., Objective: To externally validate the MEESSI-AHF score in another country., Design: Prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01831115)., Setting: Multicenter recruitment of dyspneic patients presenting to the ED., Participants: The external validation cohort included 1572 patients with AHF., Measurements: Calculation of the MEESSI-AHF score using an established model containing 12 independent risk factors., Results: Among 1572 patients with adjudicated AHF, 1247 had complete data that allowed calculation of the MEESSI-AHF score. Of these, 102 (8.2%) died within 30 days. The score predicted 30-day mortality with excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.80). Assessment of cumulative mortality showed a steep gradient in 30-day mortality over 6 predefined risk groups (0 patients in the lowest-risk group vs. 35 [28.5%] in the highest-risk group). Risk was overestimated in the high-risk groups, resulting in a Hosmer-Lemeshow P value of 0.022. However, after adjustment of the intercept, the model showed good concordance between predicted risks and observed outcomes (P = 0.23). Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analyses that used multiple imputation for missing values in the overall cohort of 1572 patients., Limitations: External validation was done using a reduced model. Findings are specific to patients with AHF who present to the ED and are clinically stable enough to provide informed consent. Performance in patients with terminal kidney failure who are receiving long-term dialysis cannot be commented on., Conclusion: External validation of the MEESSI-AHF risk score showed excellent discrimination. Recalibration may be needed when the score is introduced to new populations., Primary Funding Source: The European Union, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel, the University of Basel, and University Hospital Basel.