Back to Search Start Over

Head-to-head comparison of contemporary heart failure risk scores

Authors :
Elisabet Zamora
Josep Lupón
Joanne Simpson
Mar Domingo
G Spitaleri
Julio Núñez
Pau Codina
Núria Alonso
Antoni Bayes-Genis
Maria Isabel Troya
Wayne C. Levy
Salvador Altmir
M Boldo
Javier Santesmases
Beatriz González
Crisanto Diez-Quevedo
Evelyn Santiago-Vacas
D Buchaca
Carmen Rivas
Andrea Borrellas
Germán Cediel
Isaac Subirana
John J.V. McMurray
Source :
European Journal of Heart Failure, r-IGTP. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica del Instituto de Investigación Germans Trias i Pujol, instname, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE, r-INCLIVA. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica de INCLIVA, Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Altres ajuts: acords transformatius de la UAB Aims: Several heart failure (HF) web-based risk scores are currently used in clinical practice. Currently, we lack head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of risk scores. This study aimed to assess correlation and mortality prediction performance of Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC-HF) risk score, which includes clinical variables + medications; Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), which includes clinical variables + treatments + analytes; PARADIGM Risk of Events and Death in the Contemporary Treatment of Heart Failure (PREDICT-HF) and Barcelona Bio-Heart Failure (BCN-Bio-HF) risk calculator, which also include biomarkers, like N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Methods and results: A total of 1166 consecutive patients with HF from different aetiologies that had NT-proBNP measurement at first visit were included. Discrimination for all-cause mortality was compared by Harrell's C-statistic from 1 to 5 years, when possible. Calibration was assessed by calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test and global performance by Nagelkerke's R. Correlation between scores was assessed by Spearman rank test. Correlation between the scores was relatively poor (rho value from 0.66 to 0.79). Discrimination analyses showed better results for 1-year mortality than for longer follow-up (SHFM 0.817, MAGGIC-HF 0.801, PREDICT-HF 0.799, BCN-Bio-HF 0.830). MAGGIC-HF showed the best calibration, BCN-Bio-HF overestimated risk while SHFM and PREDICT-HF underestimated it. BCN-Bio-HF provided the best discrimination and overall performance at every time-point. Conclusions: None of the contemporary risk scores examined showed a clear superiority over the rest. BCN-Bio-HF calculator provided the best discrimination and overall performance with overestimation of risk. MAGGIC-HF showed the best calibration, and SHFM and PREDICT-HF tended to underestimate risk. Regular updating and recalibration of online web calculators seems necessary to improve their accuracy as HF management evolves at unprecedented pace.

Details

ISSN :
18790844 and 13889842
Volume :
23
Issue :
12
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
European journal of heart failureReferences
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....7c69317e81daef4344554823da9b7bf7