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

Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem

• dc.contributor.author Codina, Pau
• dc.contributor.author Subirana Cachinero, Isaac
• dc.contributor.author Bayes-Genis, Antoni
• dc.date.accessioned 2022-06-02T06:36:41Z
• dc.date.available 2022-06-02T06:36:41Z
• dc.date.issued 2021
• dc.description.abstract 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 R2 . 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.
• dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
• dc.identifier.citation Codina P, Lupón J, Borrellas A, Spitaleri G, Cediel G, Domingo M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of contemporary heart failure risk scores. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021 Dec; 23(12): 2035-44. DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2352
• dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2352
• dc.identifier.issn 1388-9842
• dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/53361
• dc.language.iso eng
• dc.publisher Wiley
• dc.rights © 2021The Authors.European Journal of Heart Failurepublished by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ which permits use anddistribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
• dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
• dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• dc.subject.keyword Heart failure
• dc.subject.keyword Mortality
• dc.subject.keyword Risk models
• dc.subject.keyword Risk prediction
• dc.title Head-to-head comparison of contemporary heart failure risk scores
• dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
• dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion