Article Navigation
Article Contents
-
Abstract
-
Introduction
-
Methods
-
Results
-
Discussion
-
Supplementary material
-
Funding
-
References
- < Previous
- Next >
Journal Article Editor's Choice
, Stuart J. Poco*ck * 1 Department of Medical Statistics , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , Keppel Street , London WC1E 7HT , *Corresponding author. Tel: +44 207 927 2413, Fax: +44 207 637 2853, Email: stuart.poco*ck@lshtm.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Cono A. Ariti 1 Department of Medical Statistics , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , Keppel Street , London WC1E 7HT , UK Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic John J.V. McMurray 2 Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Aldo Maggioni 3 ANMCO Research Centre , Florence , Italy Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Lars Køber 4 Rigshospitalet—Copenhagen University Hospital , Copenhagen , Denmark Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Iain B. Squire 5 Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Leicester , Leicester , UK Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Karl Swedberg 6 Sahlgrenska University, Hospital/Östra , Göteborg , Sweden Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Joanna Dobson 1 Department of Medical Statistics , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , Keppel Street , London WC1E 7HT , UK Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Katrina K. Poppe Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Gillian A. Whalley 7 Department of Medicine , University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic
, Rob N. Doughty 7 Department of Medicine , University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic on behalf of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic
European Heart Journal, Volume 34, Issue 19, 14 May 2013, Pages 1404–1413, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs337
Published:
24 October 2012
Article history
Received:
22 May 2012
Revision received:
03 August 2012
Accepted:
13 September 2012
Published:
24 October 2012
- Split View
- Views
- Article contents
- Figures & tables
- Video
- Audio
- Supplementary Data
-
Cite
Cite
Stuart J. Poco*ck, Cono A. Ariti, John J.V. McMurray, Aldo Maggioni, Lars Køber, Iain B. Squire, Karl Swedberg, Joanna Dobson, Katrina K. Poppe, Gillian A. Whalley, Rob N. Doughty, on behalf of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC), Predicting survival in heart failure: a risk score based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies, European Heart Journal, Volume 34, Issue 19, 14 May 2013, Pages 1404–1413, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs337
Close
Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
Abstract
Aims
Using a large international database from multiple cohort studies, the aim is to create a generalizable easily used risk score for mortality in patients with heart failure (HF).
Methods and results
The MAGGIC meta-analysis includes individual data on 39 372 patients with HF, both reduced and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF), from 30 cohort studies, six of which were clinical trials. 40.2% of patients died during a median follow-up of 2.5 years. Using multivariable piecewise Poisson regression methods with stepwise variable selection, a final model included 13 highly significant independent predictors of mortality in the following order of predictive strength: age, lower EF, NYHA class, serum creatinine, diabetes, not prescribed beta-blocker, lower systolic BP, lower body mass, time since diagnosis, current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male gender, and not prescribed ACE-inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blockers. In preserved EF, age was more predictive and systolic BP was less predictive of mortality than in reduced EF. Conversion into an easy-to-use integer risk score identified a very marked gradient in risk, with 3-year mortality rates of 10 and 70% in the bottom quintile and top decile of risk, respectively.
Conclusion
In patients with HF of both reduced and preserved EF, the influences of readily available predictors of mortality can be quantified in an integer score accessible by an easy-to-use website www.heartfailurerisk.org. The score has the potential for widespread implementation in a clinical setting.
Heart failure, Meta-analysis, Prognostic model, Mortality
See page 1391 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs363)
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of death, but prognosis in individual patients is highly variable. Quantifying a patient's survival prospects based on their overall risk profile will help identify those patients in need of more intensive monitoring and therapy, and also help target appropriate populations for trials of new therapies.
There exist previous risk models for patients with HF.1–8 Each uses a single cohort of patients and hence their generalizability to other populations is questionable. Each model's development is from a limited cohort size, compromising the ability to truly quantify the best risk prediction model. Also most models are restricted to patients with reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF), thus excluding many HF patients with preserved EF.
The Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) provides a comprehensive opportunity to develop a prognostic model in HF patients, both with reduced and preserved EF. We use readily available risk factors based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies to provide a user-friendly score that readily quantifies individual patient mortality risk.
Methods
The MAGGIC program's details are documented previously.9 Briefly, we have individual patient data from 31 cohort studies (six randomized clinical trials and 24 observational registries). Here one registry is excluded since it had only median 3-month follow-up. The remainder comprised 39 372 patients with a median follow-up of 2.5 years (inter-quartile range 1.0–3.9 years), during which 15 851 patients (40.2%) died. Thirty-one baseline variables were considered as potential predictors of mortality (Table1).
Table1
Open in new tab
Descriptive statistics for baseline variables
Alive (n = 23 521) | Died (n = 15 851) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean or % | SD | Mean or % | SD | |
Age (years) | 64.3 | 11.8 | 71.9 | 10.9 |
Male, % | 69.0 | 65.1 | ||
Non-Caucasian, % | 10.7 | 7.8 | ||
Body mass index (kg/m²) | 27.5 | 5.1 | 26.0 | 5.0 |
Current smoker, % | 34.2 | 29.0 | ||
Ejection fraction, % | 36.6 | 14.0 | 33.6 | 14.0 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 131.0 | 21.8 | 130.5 | 25.6 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 77.7 | 12.1 | 75.5 | 13.5 |
Haemoglobin (g/L) | 133.7 | 19.0 | 119.0 | 26.1 |
Heart failure duration ≥18 months, % | 48.8 | 49.7 | ||
NYHA class, % | ||||
I | 10.8 | 6.7 | ||
II | 53.8 | 37.1 | ||
III | 31.3 | 42.8 | ||
IV | 4.1 | 13.4 | ||
Creatinine (µmol/L) | 109.4 | 55.8 | 126.9 | 58.4 |
Sodium (mmol/L) | 139.7 | 3.6 | 138.9 | 4.2 |
Medical history, % | ||||
Diabetes | 20.6 | 25.7 | ||
Angina | 40.3 | 38.6 | ||
MI | 45.6 | 43.6 | ||
Atrial fibrillation | 17.8 | 23.5 | ||
Stroke | 6.2 | 12.2 | ||
COPD | 5.7 | 17.0 | ||
Hypertension | 41.3 | 39.3 | ||
Rales | 22.3 | 41.7 | ||
Ischaemic heart disease | 52.9 | 51.8 | ||
CABG | 15.4 | 13.9 | ||
PCI | 11.7 | 7.9 | ||
Branch bundle block | 22.1 | 24.5 | ||
Oedema | 21.4 | 31.9 | ||
Shortness of breath, % | ||||
Resting | 15.9 | 35.8 | ||
Exercise | 80.8 | 78.8 | ||
Medications, % | ||||
Beta-blocker | 40.4 | 24.4 | ||
ACE-I | 68.0 | 60.5 | ||
ARB | 3.3 | 4.3 |
Alive (n = 23 521) | Died (n = 15 851) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean or % | SD | Mean or % | SD | |
Age (years) | 64.3 | 11.8 | 71.9 | 10.9 |
Male, % | 69.0 | 65.1 | ||
Non-Caucasian, % | 10.7 | 7.8 | ||
Body mass index (kg/m²) | 27.5 | 5.1 | 26.0 | 5.0 |
Current smoker, % | 34.2 | 29.0 | ||
Ejection fraction, % | 36.6 | 14.0 | 33.6 | 14.0 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 131.0 | 21.8 | 130.5 | 25.6 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 77.7 | 12.1 | 75.5 | 13.5 |
Haemoglobin (g/L) | 133.7 | 19.0 | 119.0 | 26.1 |
Heart failure duration ≥18 months, % | 48.8 | 49.7 | ||
NYHA class, % | ||||
I | 10.8 | 6.7 | ||
II | 53.8 | 37.1 | ||
III | 31.3 | 42.8 | ||
IV | 4.1 | 13.4 | ||
Creatinine (µmol/L) | 109.4 | 55.8 | 126.9 | 58.4 |
Sodium (mmol/L) | 139.7 | 3.6 | 138.9 | 4.2 |
Medical history, % | ||||
Diabetes | 20.6 | 25.7 | ||
Angina | 40.3 | 38.6 | ||
MI | 45.6 | 43.6 | ||
Atrial fibrillation | 17.8 | 23.5 | ||
Stroke | 6.2 | 12.2 | ||
COPD | 5.7 | 17.0 | ||
Hypertension | 41.3 | 39.3 | ||
Rales | 22.3 | 41.7 | ||
Ischaemic heart disease | 52.9 | 51.8 | ||
CABG | 15.4 | 13.9 | ||
PCI | 11.7 | 7.9 | ||
Branch bundle block | 22.1 | 24.5 | ||
Oedema | 21.4 | 31.9 | ||
Shortness of breath, % | ||||
Resting | 15.9 | 35.8 | ||
Exercise | 80.8 | 78.8 | ||
Medications, % | ||||
Beta-blocker | 40.4 | 24.4 | ||
ACE-I | 68.0 | 60.5 | ||
ARB | 3.3 | 4.3 |
NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting.
Table1
Open in new tab
Descriptive statistics for baseline variables
Alive (n = 23 521) | Died (n = 15 851) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean or % | SD | Mean or % | SD | |
Age (years) | 64.3 | 11.8 | 71.9 | 10.9 |
Male, % | 69.0 | 65.1 | ||
Non-Caucasian, % | 10.7 | 7.8 | ||
Body mass index (kg/m²) | 27.5 | 5.1 | 26.0 | 5.0 |
Current smoker, % | 34.2 | 29.0 | ||
Ejection fraction, % | 36.6 | 14.0 | 33.6 | 14.0 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 131.0 | 21.8 | 130.5 | 25.6 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 77.7 | 12.1 | 75.5 | 13.5 |
Haemoglobin (g/L) | 133.7 | 19.0 | 119.0 | 26.1 |
Heart failure duration ≥18 months, % | 48.8 | 49.7 | ||
NYHA class, % | ||||
I | 10.8 | 6.7 | ||
II | 53.8 | 37.1 | ||
III | 31.3 | 42.8 | ||
IV | 4.1 | 13.4 | ||
Creatinine (µmol/L) | 109.4 | 55.8 | 126.9 | 58.4 |
Sodium (mmol/L) | 139.7 | 3.6 | 138.9 | 4.2 |
Medical history, % | ||||
Diabetes | 20.6 | 25.7 | ||
Angina | 40.3 | 38.6 | ||
MI | 45.6 | 43.6 | ||
Atrial fibrillation | 17.8 | 23.5 | ||
Stroke | 6.2 | 12.2 | ||
COPD | 5.7 | 17.0 | ||
Hypertension | 41.3 | 39.3 | ||
Rales | 22.3 | 41.7 | ||
Ischaemic heart disease | 52.9 | 51.8 | ||
CABG | 15.4 | 13.9 | ||
PCI | 11.7 | 7.9 | ||
Branch bundle block | 22.1 | 24.5 | ||
Oedema | 21.4 | 31.9 | ||
Shortness of breath, % | ||||
Resting | 15.9 | 35.8 | ||
Exercise | 80.8 | 78.8 | ||
Medications, % | ||||
Beta-blocker | 40.4 | 24.4 | ||
ACE-I | 68.0 | 60.5 | ||
ARB | 3.3 | 4.3 |
Alive (n = 23 521) | Died (n = 15 851) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean or % | SD | Mean or % | SD | |
Age (years) | 64.3 | 11.8 | 71.9 | 10.9 |
Male, % | 69.0 | 65.1 | ||
Non-Caucasian, % | 10.7 | 7.8 | ||
Body mass index (kg/m²) | 27.5 | 5.1 | 26.0 | 5.0 |
Current smoker, % | 34.2 | 29.0 | ||
Ejection fraction, % | 36.6 | 14.0 | 33.6 | 14.0 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 131.0 | 21.8 | 130.5 | 25.6 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 77.7 | 12.1 | 75.5 | 13.5 |
Haemoglobin (g/L) | 133.7 | 19.0 | 119.0 | 26.1 |
Heart failure duration ≥18 months, % | 48.8 | 49.7 | ||
NYHA class, % | ||||
I | 10.8 | 6.7 | ||
II | 53.8 | 37.1 | ||
III | 31.3 | 42.8 | ||
IV | 4.1 | 13.4 | ||
Creatinine (µmol/L) | 109.4 | 55.8 | 126.9 | 58.4 |
Sodium (mmol/L) | 139.7 | 3.6 | 138.9 | 4.2 |
Medical history, % | ||||
Diabetes | 20.6 | 25.7 | ||
Angina | 40.3 | 38.6 | ||
MI | 45.6 | 43.6 | ||
Atrial fibrillation | 17.8 | 23.5 | ||
Stroke | 6.2 | 12.2 | ||
COPD | 5.7 | 17.0 | ||
Hypertension | 41.3 | 39.3 | ||
Rales | 22.3 | 41.7 | ||
Ischaemic heart disease | 52.9 | 51.8 | ||
CABG | 15.4 | 13.9 | ||
PCI | 11.7 | 7.9 | ||
Branch bundle block | 22.1 | 24.5 | ||
Oedema | 21.4 | 31.9 | ||
Shortness of breath, % | ||||
Resting | 15.9 | 35.8 | ||
Exercise | 80.8 | 78.8 | ||
Medications, % | ||||
Beta-blocker | 40.4 | 24.4 | ||
ACE-I | 68.0 | 60.5 | ||
ARB | 3.3 | 4.3 |
NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting.
The Coordinating Centre at the University of Auckland assembled the database for 29 studies. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine team the added in the CHARM trial data. The online Appendix lists the MAGGIC investigators (SupplementarySupplementary Data).
In 18 studies, a preference was for rounding the EF to the nearest 5%. In these studies, such rounded values were re-allocated within 2.5% either side using a uniform distribution.
Statistical methods
Poisson regression models were used to simultaneously relate baseline variables to the time to death from any cause, with study fitted as a random effect. Since mortality risk is higher early on, the underlying Poisson rate was set in three time bands: up to 3 months, 3–6 months, and over 6 months. Models were built using forward stepwise regression with inclusion criterion P < 0.01.
For binary and categorical variables, dummy variables were used. Quantitative variables were fitted as continuous measurements, unless there was a clear evidence of non-linearity, e.g. body mass index, EF, and creatinine. Also two highly significant statistical interactions were included in the main model: the impact of age and systolic blood pressure both depend on EF.
Each variable's strength of contribution to predicting mortality was expressed as the z statistic. The larger the z the smaller the P-value, e.g.: z values 3.29, 3.89, 5.32, and 6.11 are associated with P-values 0.001, 0.0001, 0.0000001, and 0.000000001, respectively.
Missing values are handled by multiple imputations using chained equations.10,11 This method has three steps. First, for each variable with missing values, a regression equation is created. This model includes the outcome and follow-up time, in this case the Nelson–Aalen estimator (as recommended by White and Royston10), an indicator variable for each study and other model covariates. For continuous variables, this is a multivariable linear regression, for binary variables, a logistic regression, and for ordered categorical variables, an ordinal logistic regression. Once all such regression equations are defined, missing values are replaced by randomly chosen observed values of each variable in the first iteration. For subsequent iterations, missing values are replaced by a random draw from the distribution defined by the regression equations. This was repeated for 10 iterations, the final value being the chosen imputed value. This is similar to Gibbs sampling.12
This entire process was repeated 25 times, thus creating 25 imputed data sets. The next step was to estimate the model for each of these data sets. Finally, the model coefficients are averaged according to Rubin's rule.13 This ensures that the estimated standard error of each averaged coefficient reflects both between and within imputation variances, giving valid inferences.
We converted the Poisson model predictor to an integer score, which is then directly related to an individual's probability of dying within 3 years. A zero score represents a patient at lowest possible risk. Having grouped each variable into convenient intervals, the score increases by an integer amount for each risk factor level above the lowest risk. Each integer is a rounding of the exact coefficient in the Poisson model, making log rate ratio 0.1 equivalent to 1 point.
The data were analysed using Stata version 12.1 statistical package.
Results
This report is based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies: six were randomized controlled trials (24 041 patients) and 24 were registries (15 331 patients). Supplementary material online Table S1 describes each of the 30 studies. Overall, 15 851 (40.2%) patients died during a median follow-up of 2.5 years. The six largest studies (DIAMOND,14 DIG,15 CHARM,16 and ECHOS17 trials and IN-CHF18 and HOLA19 registries) contributed 75.8% of patients and also 75.8% of deaths.
There were 31 baseline variables available for inclusion in prognostic models. Table1 provides their descriptive statistics for patients still alive and patients who died during follow-up.
Using Poisson regression models for patient survival with forward stepwise variable selection, adjusting for study (random effect) and follow-up time (higher mortality rate in early follow-up), we identified 13 independent predictor variables (Table2). All were highly significant P < 0.002, and most were overwhelmingly significant, i.e. P < 0.0001.
Table2
Open in new tab
Multivariable model predicting mortality in all 39 372 patients
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Log rate ratio | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.154 | (1.092, 1.220) | 0.143 | 5.08 | <0.0001 |
Males | 1.115 | (1.073, 1.159) | 0.109 | 5.58 | <0.0001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2)a | 0.965 | (0.959, 0.972) | −0.035 | −10.10 | <0.0001 |
Current smoker | 1.159 | (1.109, 1.210) | 0.147 | 6.65 | <0.0001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.882 | (0.855, 0.910) | −0.126 | −7.85 | <0.0001 |
Diabetes | 1.422 | (1.365, 1.481) | 0.352 | 16.85 | <0.0001 |
NYHA | |||||
I | 0.788 | (0.732, 0.848) | −0.239 | −6.35 | <0.0001 |
II | 1.000 | ||||
III | 1.410 | (1.354, 1.467) | 0.343 | 16.75 | <0.0001 |
IV | 1.684 | (1.580, 1.796) | 0.521 | 16.05 | <0.0001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase up to 40%)a | 0.581 | (0.539, 0.627) | −0.542 | −14.03 | <0.0001 |
COPD | 1.228 | (1.152, 1.310) | 0.206 | 6.36 | <0.0001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.188 | (1.139, 1.240) | 0.173 | 7.96 | <0.0001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.039 | (1.035, 1.042) | 0.038 | 19.82 | <0.0001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.760 | (0.726, 0.796) | −0.274 | −11.77 | <0.0001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.908 | (0.856, 0.963) | −0.096 | −3.26 | 0.002 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and ageb | 1.040 | (1.031, 1.049) | 0.039 | 9.05 | <0.0001 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and SBPc | 1.012 | (1.008, 1.017) | 0.012 | 5.13 | <0.0001 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Log rate ratio | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.154 | (1.092, 1.220) | 0.143 | 5.08 | <0.0001 |
Males | 1.115 | (1.073, 1.159) | 0.109 | 5.58 | <0.0001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2)a | 0.965 | (0.959, 0.972) | −0.035 | −10.10 | <0.0001 |
Current smoker | 1.159 | (1.109, 1.210) | 0.147 | 6.65 | <0.0001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.882 | (0.855, 0.910) | −0.126 | −7.85 | <0.0001 |
Diabetes | 1.422 | (1.365, 1.481) | 0.352 | 16.85 | <0.0001 |
NYHA | |||||
I | 0.788 | (0.732, 0.848) | −0.239 | −6.35 | <0.0001 |
II | 1.000 | ||||
III | 1.410 | (1.354, 1.467) | 0.343 | 16.75 | <0.0001 |
IV | 1.684 | (1.580, 1.796) | 0.521 | 16.05 | <0.0001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase up to 40%)a | 0.581 | (0.539, 0.627) | −0.542 | −14.03 | <0.0001 |
COPD | 1.228 | (1.152, 1.310) | 0.206 | 6.36 | <0.0001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.188 | (1.139, 1.240) | 0.173 | 7.96 | <0.0001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.039 | (1.035, 1.042) | 0.038 | 19.82 | <0.0001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.760 | (0.726, 0.796) | −0.274 | −11.77 | <0.0001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.908 | (0.856, 0.963) | −0.096 | −3.26 | 0.002 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and ageb | 1.040 | (1.031, 1.049) | 0.039 | 9.05 | <0.0001 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and SBPc | 1.012 | (1.008, 1.017) | 0.012 | 5.13 | <0.0001 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
aThe BMI variable has a linear trend up to 30 kg/m2, while above 30 kg/m2 the risk is constant. Similarly, for ejection fraction, the risk is constant above 40%, and for creatinine risk is constant above 350 µmol/L.
bThe interaction between ejection fraction and age indicates an extra 4% increase in mortality for each simultaneous 10-year increase in age and 5% increase in ejection fraction on top of the risks of ejection fraction and age considered independently, i.e. the protective effect of increased ejection fraction function diminishes as a patient ages (Figure1).
cThe interaction between ejection fraction and SBP indicates an extra 1.2% increase in mortality for each simultaneous 10 mmHg increase in SBP and 5% increase in ejection fraction on top of the risks of ejection fraction and SBP considered independently, i.e. the protective effect of increased ejection fraction function diminishes as a patient's SBP increases (Figure1).
Table2
Open in new tab
Multivariable model predicting mortality in all 39 372 patients
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Log rate ratio | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.154 | (1.092, 1.220) | 0.143 | 5.08 | <0.0001 |
Males | 1.115 | (1.073, 1.159) | 0.109 | 5.58 | <0.0001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2)a | 0.965 | (0.959, 0.972) | −0.035 | −10.10 | <0.0001 |
Current smoker | 1.159 | (1.109, 1.210) | 0.147 | 6.65 | <0.0001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.882 | (0.855, 0.910) | −0.126 | −7.85 | <0.0001 |
Diabetes | 1.422 | (1.365, 1.481) | 0.352 | 16.85 | <0.0001 |
NYHA | |||||
I | 0.788 | (0.732, 0.848) | −0.239 | −6.35 | <0.0001 |
II | 1.000 | ||||
III | 1.410 | (1.354, 1.467) | 0.343 | 16.75 | <0.0001 |
IV | 1.684 | (1.580, 1.796) | 0.521 | 16.05 | <0.0001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase up to 40%)a | 0.581 | (0.539, 0.627) | −0.542 | −14.03 | <0.0001 |
COPD | 1.228 | (1.152, 1.310) | 0.206 | 6.36 | <0.0001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.188 | (1.139, 1.240) | 0.173 | 7.96 | <0.0001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.039 | (1.035, 1.042) | 0.038 | 19.82 | <0.0001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.760 | (0.726, 0.796) | −0.274 | −11.77 | <0.0001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.908 | (0.856, 0.963) | −0.096 | −3.26 | 0.002 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and ageb | 1.040 | (1.031, 1.049) | 0.039 | 9.05 | <0.0001 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and SBPc | 1.012 | (1.008, 1.017) | 0.012 | 5.13 | <0.0001 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Log rate ratio | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.154 | (1.092, 1.220) | 0.143 | 5.08 | <0.0001 |
Males | 1.115 | (1.073, 1.159) | 0.109 | 5.58 | <0.0001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2)a | 0.965 | (0.959, 0.972) | −0.035 | −10.10 | <0.0001 |
Current smoker | 1.159 | (1.109, 1.210) | 0.147 | 6.65 | <0.0001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.882 | (0.855, 0.910) | −0.126 | −7.85 | <0.0001 |
Diabetes | 1.422 | (1.365, 1.481) | 0.352 | 16.85 | <0.0001 |
NYHA | |||||
I | 0.788 | (0.732, 0.848) | −0.239 | −6.35 | <0.0001 |
II | 1.000 | ||||
III | 1.410 | (1.354, 1.467) | 0.343 | 16.75 | <0.0001 |
IV | 1.684 | (1.580, 1.796) | 0.521 | 16.05 | <0.0001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase up to 40%)a | 0.581 | (0.539, 0.627) | −0.542 | −14.03 | <0.0001 |
COPD | 1.228 | (1.152, 1.310) | 0.206 | 6.36 | <0.0001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.188 | (1.139, 1.240) | 0.173 | 7.96 | <0.0001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.039 | (1.035, 1.042) | 0.038 | 19.82 | <0.0001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.760 | (0.726, 0.796) | −0.274 | −11.77 | <0.0001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.908 | (0.856, 0.963) | −0.096 | −3.26 | 0.002 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and ageb | 1.040 | (1.031, 1.049) | 0.039 | 9.05 | <0.0001 |
Interaction of ejection fraction and SBPc | 1.012 | (1.008, 1.017) | 0.012 | 5.13 | <0.0001 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
aThe BMI variable has a linear trend up to 30 kg/m2, while above 30 kg/m2 the risk is constant. Similarly, for ejection fraction, the risk is constant above 40%, and for creatinine risk is constant above 350 µmol/L.
bThe interaction between ejection fraction and age indicates an extra 4% increase in mortality for each simultaneous 10-year increase in age and 5% increase in ejection fraction on top of the risks of ejection fraction and age considered independently, i.e. the protective effect of increased ejection fraction function diminishes as a patient ages (Figure1).
cThe interaction between ejection fraction and SBP indicates an extra 1.2% increase in mortality for each simultaneous 10 mmHg increase in SBP and 5% increase in ejection fraction on top of the risks of ejection fraction and SBP considered independently, i.e. the protective effect of increased ejection fraction function diminishes as a patient's SBP increases (Figure1).
Table3 lists the extent of missing data for these 13 variables. A multiple imputation algorithm (see Methods) was used to overcome this problem. Consequently, all results are based on average estimates across 25 imputed data sets.
Table3
Open in new tab
Extent of missing data
Model variable | Studies with no data | Studies with some data | Total patients missing data | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies | Missing patients | Studies | Missing patients | ||
Age | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gender | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BMI | 17 | 14 515 | 13 | 2686 | 17 201 |
Current smoker | 6 | 9166 | 24 | 448 | 9614 |
SBP | 9 | 12 016 | 21 | 276 | 12 292 |
Diabetes | 1 | 348 | 29 | 341 | 689 |
NYHA class | 5 | 2503 | 25 | 1128 | 3631 |
Ejection fraction | 6 | 3279 | 24 | 3558 | 6837 |
COPD | 10 | 16 788 | 20 | 253 | 17 041 |
HF duration | 20 | 11 679 | 10 | 1066 | 12 745 |
Creatinine | 5 | 2800 | 25 | 17 245 | 20 045 |
Beta-blocker | 3 | 7890 | 27 | 709 | 8599 |
ACE-I/ARB | 1 | 97 | 29 | 649 | 746 |
Model variable | Studies with no data | Studies with some data | Total patients missing data | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies | Missing patients | Studies | Missing patients | ||
Age | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gender | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BMI | 17 | 14 515 | 13 | 2686 | 17 201 |
Current smoker | 6 | 9166 | 24 | 448 | 9614 |
SBP | 9 | 12 016 | 21 | 276 | 12 292 |
Diabetes | 1 | 348 | 29 | 341 | 689 |
NYHA class | 5 | 2503 | 25 | 1128 | 3631 |
Ejection fraction | 6 | 3279 | 24 | 3558 | 6837 |
COPD | 10 | 16 788 | 20 | 253 | 17 041 |
HF duration | 20 | 11 679 | 10 | 1066 | 12 745 |
Creatinine | 5 | 2800 | 25 | 17 245 | 20 045 |
Beta-blocker | 3 | 7890 | 27 | 709 | 8599 |
ACE-I/ARB | 1 | 97 | 29 | 649 | 746 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
Table3
Open in new tab
Extent of missing data
Model variable | Studies with no data | Studies with some data | Total patients missing data | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies | Missing patients | Studies | Missing patients | ||
Age | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gender | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BMI | 17 | 14 515 | 13 | 2686 | 17 201 |
Current smoker | 6 | 9166 | 24 | 448 | 9614 |
SBP | 9 | 12 016 | 21 | 276 | 12 292 |
Diabetes | 1 | 348 | 29 | 341 | 689 |
NYHA class | 5 | 2503 | 25 | 1128 | 3631 |
Ejection fraction | 6 | 3279 | 24 | 3558 | 6837 |
COPD | 10 | 16 788 | 20 | 253 | 17 041 |
HF duration | 20 | 11 679 | 10 | 1066 | 12 745 |
Creatinine | 5 | 2800 | 25 | 17 245 | 20 045 |
Beta-blocker | 3 | 7890 | 27 | 709 | 8599 |
ACE-I/ARB | 1 | 97 | 29 | 649 | 746 |
Model variable | Studies with no data | Studies with some data | Total patients missing data | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies | Missing patients | Studies | Missing patients | ||
Age | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gender | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
BMI | 17 | 14 515 | 13 | 2686 | 17 201 |
Current smoker | 6 | 9166 | 24 | 448 | 9614 |
SBP | 9 | 12 016 | 21 | 276 | 12 292 |
Diabetes | 1 | 348 | 29 | 341 | 689 |
NYHA class | 5 | 2503 | 25 | 1128 | 3631 |
Ejection fraction | 6 | 3279 | 24 | 3558 | 6837 |
COPD | 10 | 16 788 | 20 | 253 | 17 041 |
HF duration | 20 | 11 679 | 10 | 1066 | 12 745 |
Creatinine | 5 | 2800 | 25 | 17 245 | 20 045 |
Beta-blocker | 3 | 7890 | 27 | 709 | 8599 |
ACE-I/ARB | 1 | 97 | 29 | 649 | 746 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
For continuous variables, potential non-linearity in the prediction of survival was explored, as were potential statistical interactions between predictors. Hence the associations of EF, body mass index, and serum creatinine with mortality risk were, respectively, confined to EF <40%, body mass index <30 kg/m2, and serum creatinine <350 µmol/L. The mortality association of increased age was more marked with higher EF, whereas the inverse association of systolic blood pressure with mortality became more marked with lower EF.
Figure1 displays the independent impact of each predictor on mortality risk. The impact of age (which varies with EF) is particularly strong, and hence is shown on a different scale to the other plots.
Figure1
Mortality rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for each variable in the predictive model. All charts are on the same scale except that for the interaction between ejection fraction and age, where the impact on mortality is more marked.
Open in new tabDownload slide
From the risk coefficients given in Table2, an integer score has been created (Figure2). For each patient, the integer amounts contributed by the risk factor's values are added up to obtain a total integer score for that patient. The bell-shaped distribution of this integer risk score for all 39 372 patients is shown in Figure3. The median is 23 points and the range is 0–52 points, with 95% of patients in the range of 8–36 points. The curve in Figure3 relates a patient's score to their probability of dying within 3 years. For instance, scores of 10, 20, 30, and 40 have 3-year probabilities 0.101, 0.256, 0.525, and 0.842, respectively. Table4 details the link between any integer score and the probabilities of dying within 1 year and 3 years.
Table4
Open in new tab
Predicted probabilities of death for each integer risk score
Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death | Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.015 | 0.039 | 26 | 0.175 | 0.397 |
1 | 0.016 | 0.043 | 27 | 0.191 | 0.427 |
2 | 0.018 | 0.048 | 28 | 0.209 | 0.458 |
3 | 0.020 | 0.052 | 29 | 0.227 | 0.490 |
4 | 0.022 | 0.058 | 30 | 0.248 | 0.523 |
5 | 0.024 | 0.063 | 31 | 0.269 | 0.556 |
6 | 0.027 | 0.070 | 32 | 0.292 | 0.590 |
7 | 0.029 | 0.077 | 33 | 0.316 | 0.625 |
8 | 0.032 | 0.084 | 34 | 0.342 | 0.658 |
9 | 0.036 | 0.092 | 35 | 0.369 | 0.692 |
10 | 0.039 | 0.102 | 36 | 0.398 | 0.725 |
11 | 0.043 | 0.111 | 37 | 0.427 | 0.756 |
12 | 0.048 | 0.122 | 38 | 0.458 | 0.787 |
13 | 0.052 | 0.134 | 39 | 0.490 | 0.815 |
14 | 0.058 | 0.146 | 40 | 0.523 | 0.842 |
15 | 0.063 | 0.160 | 41 | 0.557 | 0.866 |
16 | 0.070 | 0.175 | 42 | 0.591 | 0.889 |
17 | 0.077 | 0.191 | 43 | 0.625 | 0.908 |
18 | 0.084 | 0.209 | 44 | 0.659 | 0.926 |
19 | 0.093 | 0.227 | 45 | 0.692 | 0.941 |
20 | 0.102 | 0.247 | 46 | 0.725 | 0.953 |
21 | 0.111 | 0.269 | 47 | 0.757 | 0.964 |
22 | 0.122 | 0.292 | 48 | 0.787 | 0.973 |
23 | 0.134 | 0.316 | 49 | 0.816 | 0.980 |
24 | 0.147 | 0.342 | 50 | 0.842 | 0.985 |
25 | 0.160 | 0.369 |
Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death | Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.015 | 0.039 | 26 | 0.175 | 0.397 |
1 | 0.016 | 0.043 | 27 | 0.191 | 0.427 |
2 | 0.018 | 0.048 | 28 | 0.209 | 0.458 |
3 | 0.020 | 0.052 | 29 | 0.227 | 0.490 |
4 | 0.022 | 0.058 | 30 | 0.248 | 0.523 |
5 | 0.024 | 0.063 | 31 | 0.269 | 0.556 |
6 | 0.027 | 0.070 | 32 | 0.292 | 0.590 |
7 | 0.029 | 0.077 | 33 | 0.316 | 0.625 |
8 | 0.032 | 0.084 | 34 | 0.342 | 0.658 |
9 | 0.036 | 0.092 | 35 | 0.369 | 0.692 |
10 | 0.039 | 0.102 | 36 | 0.398 | 0.725 |
11 | 0.043 | 0.111 | 37 | 0.427 | 0.756 |
12 | 0.048 | 0.122 | 38 | 0.458 | 0.787 |
13 | 0.052 | 0.134 | 39 | 0.490 | 0.815 |
14 | 0.058 | 0.146 | 40 | 0.523 | 0.842 |
15 | 0.063 | 0.160 | 41 | 0.557 | 0.866 |
16 | 0.070 | 0.175 | 42 | 0.591 | 0.889 |
17 | 0.077 | 0.191 | 43 | 0.625 | 0.908 |
18 | 0.084 | 0.209 | 44 | 0.659 | 0.926 |
19 | 0.093 | 0.227 | 45 | 0.692 | 0.941 |
20 | 0.102 | 0.247 | 46 | 0.725 | 0.953 |
21 | 0.111 | 0.269 | 47 | 0.757 | 0.964 |
22 | 0.122 | 0.292 | 48 | 0.787 | 0.973 |
23 | 0.134 | 0.316 | 49 | 0.816 | 0.980 |
24 | 0.147 | 0.342 | 50 | 0.842 | 0.985 |
25 | 0.160 | 0.369 |
Table4
Open in new tab
Predicted probabilities of death for each integer risk score
Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death | Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.015 | 0.039 | 26 | 0.175 | 0.397 |
1 | 0.016 | 0.043 | 27 | 0.191 | 0.427 |
2 | 0.018 | 0.048 | 28 | 0.209 | 0.458 |
3 | 0.020 | 0.052 | 29 | 0.227 | 0.490 |
4 | 0.022 | 0.058 | 30 | 0.248 | 0.523 |
5 | 0.024 | 0.063 | 31 | 0.269 | 0.556 |
6 | 0.027 | 0.070 | 32 | 0.292 | 0.590 |
7 | 0.029 | 0.077 | 33 | 0.316 | 0.625 |
8 | 0.032 | 0.084 | 34 | 0.342 | 0.658 |
9 | 0.036 | 0.092 | 35 | 0.369 | 0.692 |
10 | 0.039 | 0.102 | 36 | 0.398 | 0.725 |
11 | 0.043 | 0.111 | 37 | 0.427 | 0.756 |
12 | 0.048 | 0.122 | 38 | 0.458 | 0.787 |
13 | 0.052 | 0.134 | 39 | 0.490 | 0.815 |
14 | 0.058 | 0.146 | 40 | 0.523 | 0.842 |
15 | 0.063 | 0.160 | 41 | 0.557 | 0.866 |
16 | 0.070 | 0.175 | 42 | 0.591 | 0.889 |
17 | 0.077 | 0.191 | 43 | 0.625 | 0.908 |
18 | 0.084 | 0.209 | 44 | 0.659 | 0.926 |
19 | 0.093 | 0.227 | 45 | 0.692 | 0.941 |
20 | 0.102 | 0.247 | 46 | 0.725 | 0.953 |
21 | 0.111 | 0.269 | 47 | 0.757 | 0.964 |
22 | 0.122 | 0.292 | 48 | 0.787 | 0.973 |
23 | 0.134 | 0.316 | 49 | 0.816 | 0.980 |
24 | 0.147 | 0.342 | 50 | 0.842 | 0.985 |
25 | 0.160 | 0.369 |
Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death | Integer risk score | 1-year probability of death | 3-year probability of death |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0.015 | 0.039 | 26 | 0.175 | 0.397 |
1 | 0.016 | 0.043 | 27 | 0.191 | 0.427 |
2 | 0.018 | 0.048 | 28 | 0.209 | 0.458 |
3 | 0.020 | 0.052 | 29 | 0.227 | 0.490 |
4 | 0.022 | 0.058 | 30 | 0.248 | 0.523 |
5 | 0.024 | 0.063 | 31 | 0.269 | 0.556 |
6 | 0.027 | 0.070 | 32 | 0.292 | 0.590 |
7 | 0.029 | 0.077 | 33 | 0.316 | 0.625 |
8 | 0.032 | 0.084 | 34 | 0.342 | 0.658 |
9 | 0.036 | 0.092 | 35 | 0.369 | 0.692 |
10 | 0.039 | 0.102 | 36 | 0.398 | 0.725 |
11 | 0.043 | 0.111 | 37 | 0.427 | 0.756 |
12 | 0.048 | 0.122 | 38 | 0.458 | 0.787 |
13 | 0.052 | 0.134 | 39 | 0.490 | 0.815 |
14 | 0.058 | 0.146 | 40 | 0.523 | 0.842 |
15 | 0.063 | 0.160 | 41 | 0.557 | 0.866 |
16 | 0.070 | 0.175 | 42 | 0.591 | 0.889 |
17 | 0.077 | 0.191 | 43 | 0.625 | 0.908 |
18 | 0.084 | 0.209 | 44 | 0.659 | 0.926 |
19 | 0.093 | 0.227 | 45 | 0.692 | 0.941 |
20 | 0.102 | 0.247 | 46 | 0.725 | 0.953 |
21 | 0.111 | 0.269 | 47 | 0.757 | 0.964 |
22 | 0.122 | 0.292 | 48 | 0.787 | 0.973 |
23 | 0.134 | 0.316 | 49 | 0.816 | 0.980 |
24 | 0.147 | 0.342 | 50 | 0.842 | 0.985 |
25 | 0.160 | 0.369 |
Figure2
A chart to calculate the integer risk score for each patient.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Figure3
Distribution of the integer risk score for all 39 372 patients, and its association with the risk of dying (and 95% CI) within 3 years.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Figure4 shows mortality over 3 years for patients classified into six risk groups. Groups 1–4 comprise patients with scores 0–16, 17–20, 21–24, and 25–28, respectively, approximately the first four quintiles of risk. To give more detail at higher risk, groups 5 and 6 comprise patients with scores 29–32 and 33 or more, approximately the top two deciles of risk. The marked continuous separation of the six Kaplan–Meier curves is striking: the 3-year % dead in the bottom quintile and top decile is 10 and 70%, respectively.
Figure4
Cumulative mortality risk over 3 years for patients classified into six risk groups. Risk groups 1–4 represent the first four quintiles of risk (integer scores 0–16, 17–20, 21–24, and 25–28, respectively). Risk groups 5 and 6 represent the top two deciles of risk (integer scores 29–32 and 33 or more, respectively). 95% CIs are plotted at 1, 2, and 3 years follow-up.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Regarding model goodness-of-fit, Figure5 compares observed and model-predicted 3-year mortality risk across the six risk groups. In the bottom two groups, the observed mortality is slightly lower than that predicted by the model, but overall the marked gradient in risk is well captured by the integer score.
Figure5
Observed vs. model-predicted 3-year mortality in six risk groups.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Tables5 and 6 show two separate models for patients with reduced and preserved left-ventricular function (EF <40 and ≥40%, respectively). For most predictors, the strength of mortality association is similar in both subgroups. However, the impact of age is more marked and the impact of lower SBP is less marked in patients with preserved left-ventricular function, consistent with the interactions in the overall model.
Table5
Open in new tab
Main effects model for EF <40 (21 442 patients of whom 8900 died)
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.407 | (1.375, 1.439) | 29.54 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.101 | (1.044, 1.161) | 3.57 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.970 | (0.961, 0.978) | −7.32 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.154 | (1.091, 1.222) | 4.99 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.936 | (0.924, 0.948) | −10.06 | <0.001 |
Diabetes | 1.421 | (1.347, 1.499) | 13.00 | <0.001 |
NYHA classs | ||||
I | 0.828 | (0.744, 0.922) | −3.44 | 0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.372 | (1.303, 1.445) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.640 | (1.503, 1.790) | 11.21 | <0.001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase) | 0.915 | (0.902, 0.928) | −12.34 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.191 | (1.096, 1.295) | 4.17 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.191 | (1.127, 1.259) | 6.22 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.041 | (1.035, 1.046) | 15.65 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.736 | (0.694, 0.781) | −10.21 | <0.001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.834 | (0.770, 0.905) | −4.47 | <0.001 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.407 | (1.375, 1.439) | 29.54 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.101 | (1.044, 1.161) | 3.57 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.970 | (0.961, 0.978) | −7.32 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.154 | (1.091, 1.222) | 4.99 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.936 | (0.924, 0.948) | −10.06 | <0.001 |
Diabetes | 1.421 | (1.347, 1.499) | 13.00 | <0.001 |
NYHA classs | ||||
I | 0.828 | (0.744, 0.922) | −3.44 | 0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.372 | (1.303, 1.445) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.640 | (1.503, 1.790) | 11.21 | <0.001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase) | 0.915 | (0.902, 0.928) | −12.34 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.191 | (1.096, 1.295) | 4.17 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.191 | (1.127, 1.259) | 6.22 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.041 | (1.035, 1.046) | 15.65 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.736 | (0.694, 0.781) | −10.21 | <0.001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.834 | (0.770, 0.905) | −4.47 | <0.001 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
Table5
Open in new tab
Main effects model for EF <40 (21 442 patients of whom 8900 died)
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.407 | (1.375, 1.439) | 29.54 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.101 | (1.044, 1.161) | 3.57 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.970 | (0.961, 0.978) | −7.32 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.154 | (1.091, 1.222) | 4.99 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.936 | (0.924, 0.948) | −10.06 | <0.001 |
Diabetes | 1.421 | (1.347, 1.499) | 13.00 | <0.001 |
NYHA classs | ||||
I | 0.828 | (0.744, 0.922) | −3.44 | 0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.372 | (1.303, 1.445) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.640 | (1.503, 1.790) | 11.21 | <0.001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase) | 0.915 | (0.902, 0.928) | −12.34 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.191 | (1.096, 1.295) | 4.17 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.191 | (1.127, 1.259) | 6.22 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.041 | (1.035, 1.046) | 15.65 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.736 | (0.694, 0.781) | −10.21 | <0.001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.834 | (0.770, 0.905) | −4.47 | <0.001 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.407 | (1.375, 1.439) | 29.54 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.101 | (1.044, 1.161) | 3.57 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.970 | (0.961, 0.978) | −7.32 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.154 | (1.091, 1.222) | 4.99 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg increase) | 0.936 | (0.924, 0.948) | −10.06 | <0.001 |
Diabetes | 1.421 | (1.347, 1.499) | 13.00 | <0.001 |
NYHA classs | ||||
I | 0.828 | (0.744, 0.922) | −3.44 | 0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.372 | (1.303, 1.445) | 12.03 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.640 | (1.503, 1.790) | 11.21 | <0.001 |
Ejection fraction (per 5% increase) | 0.915 | (0.902, 0.928) | −12.34 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.191 | (1.096, 1.295) | 4.17 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.191 | (1.127, 1.259) | 6.22 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.041 | (1.035, 1.046) | 15.65 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.736 | (0.694, 0.781) | −10.21 | <0.001 |
ACE-I/ARB | 0.834 | (0.770, 0.905) | −4.47 | <0.001 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Heart Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
Table6
Open in new tab
Main effects model for EF ≥40 (17 930 patients of whom 6951 died)
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.589 | (1.536, 1.643) | 27.14 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.113 | (1.053, 1.177) | 3.77 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.960 | (0.951, 0.969) | −8.50 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.174 | (1.095, 1.258) | 4.54 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg) | 0.982 | (0.968, 0.998) | −2.30 | 0.024 |
Diabetes | 1.401 | (1.311, 1.498) | 9.90 | <0.001 |
NYHA class | ||||
I | 0.756 | (0.682, 0.838) | −5.32 | <0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.458 | (1.361, 1.561) | 10.83 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.756 | (1.599, 1.928) | 11.82 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.284 | (1.181, 1.396) | 5.91 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.166 | (1.088, 1.250) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.035 | (1.029, 1.041) | 11.39 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.798 | (0.746, 0.855) | −6.47 | <0.001 |
ARB/ACE-I | 0.938 | (0.842, 1.044) | −1.21 | 0.233 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.589 | (1.536, 1.643) | 27.14 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.113 | (1.053, 1.177) | 3.77 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.960 | (0.951, 0.969) | −8.50 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.174 | (1.095, 1.258) | 4.54 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg) | 0.982 | (0.968, 0.998) | −2.30 | 0.024 |
Diabetes | 1.401 | (1.311, 1.498) | 9.90 | <0.001 |
NYHA class | ||||
I | 0.756 | (0.682, 0.838) | −5.32 | <0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.458 | (1.361, 1.561) | 10.83 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.756 | (1.599, 1.928) | 11.82 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.284 | (1.181, 1.396) | 5.91 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.166 | (1.088, 1.250) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.035 | (1.029, 1.041) | 11.39 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.798 | (0.746, 0.855) | −6.47 | <0.001 |
ARB/ACE-I | 0.938 | (0.842, 1.044) | −1.21 | 0.233 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Hear Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
Table6
Open in new tab
Main effects model for EF ≥40 (17 930 patients of whom 6951 died)
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.589 | (1.536, 1.643) | 27.14 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.113 | (1.053, 1.177) | 3.77 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.960 | (0.951, 0.969) | −8.50 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.174 | (1.095, 1.258) | 4.54 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg) | 0.982 | (0.968, 0.998) | −2.30 | 0.024 |
Diabetes | 1.401 | (1.311, 1.498) | 9.90 | <0.001 |
NYHA class | ||||
I | 0.756 | (0.682, 0.838) | −5.32 | <0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.458 | (1.361, 1.561) | 10.83 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.756 | (1.599, 1.928) | 11.82 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.284 | (1.181, 1.396) | 5.91 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.166 | (1.088, 1.250) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.035 | (1.029, 1.041) | 11.39 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.798 | (0.746, 0.855) | −6.47 | <0.001 |
ARB/ACE-I | 0.938 | (0.842, 1.044) | −1.21 | 0.233 |
Variable | Rate ratio | 95% CI | Z | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (per 10 years) | 1.589 | (1.536, 1.643) | 27.14 | <0.001 |
Male | 1.113 | (1.053, 1.177) | 3.77 | <0.001 |
BMI (per 1 kg/m2 increase up to 30 kg/m2) | 0.960 | (0.951, 0.969) | −8.50 | <0.001 |
Current smoker | 1.174 | (1.095, 1.258) | 4.54 | <0.001 |
SBP (per 10 mmHg) | 0.982 | (0.968, 0.998) | −2.30 | 0.024 |
Diabetes | 1.401 | (1.311, 1.498) | 9.90 | <0.001 |
NYHA class | ||||
I | 0.756 | (0.682, 0.838) | −5.32 | <0.001 |
II | 1.000 | |||
III | 1.458 | (1.361, 1.561) | 10.83 | <0.001 |
IV | 1.756 | (1.599, 1.928) | 11.82 | <0.001 |
COPD | 1.284 | (1.181, 1.396) | 5.91 | <0.001 |
HF duration >18 months | 1.166 | (1.088, 1.250) | 4.37 | <0.001 |
Creatinine (per 10 µmol/L up to 350 µmol/L) | 1.035 | (1.029, 1.041) | 11.39 | <0.001 |
Beta-blocker | 0.798 | (0.746, 0.855) | −6.47 | <0.001 |
ARB/ACE-I | 0.938 | (0.842, 1.044) | −1.21 | 0.233 |
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; NYHA, New York Hear Association; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HF, heart failure; ACE-I, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.
In this meta-analysis of 30 cohort studies, we explored between-study heterogeneity in mortality prediction. From fitting separate models for each study, we observe a good consistency across studies re the relative importance of the predictors (data not shown). We have also repeated the model in Table2, now fitting study as a fixed effect (rather than a random effect). This reveals substantial between-study differences in mortality risk not explained by predictors in our model. However, a comparison of the seven randomized trials with the 23 patient registries reveals no significant difference in their mortality rates.
Discussion
This study identifies 13 independent predictors of mortality in HF. Although all have been previously identified, the model and risk score reported here are the most comprehensive and generalizable available in the literature. They are based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies with a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the largest available database of HF patients. Also, we include patients with both reduced and preserved EF, the latter being absent from most previous models of HF prognosis.
Given the wide variety of different studies included, with a global representation, the findings are inherently generalizable to a broad spectrum of current and future patients. Conversion of the risk model into a user-friendly integer score accessible by the website www.heartfailurerisk.org facilitates its use on a routine individual patient basis by busy clinicians and nurses.
All 13 predictors in the risk score should be routinely available, though provision will be made in the website for one or two variables to be unknown for an individual. Note, the ‘top five’ predictors age, EF, serum creatinine, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and diabetes are important to know. The inverse association of EF with mortality is well established, and as previously reported,9 in above 40% there appears no further trend in prognosis. We included serum creatinine rather than creatinine clearance or eGFR. The latter involve formulae that include age, which would artificially diminish the huge influence of age on prognosis.
We confirm the association of body mass index with mortality,20 but with a cut-off of 30 kg/m2, above which there appears no further trend. While others report heart rate as a significant predictor of mortality,21 we find that once the strong influence of beta blocker use is included, heart rate was not a strong independent predictor. A modest association of ACE-inhibitor and/or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) use with lower mortality was highly significant, though many of our cohorts were established before ARBs were routinely available.
Cardiovascular disease history (e.g. myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, atrial fibrillation, LBBB) was considered in our model development. What mattered most was the time since first diagnosis of HF, best captured by whether this exceeds 18 months. Besides the powerful influence of diabetes, the other disease indicator of a poorer prognosis was prevalence of COPD. Previous myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and LBBB were not sufficiently strong independent predictors of risk to be included in our model.
For patients with reduced and preserved EF, we developed separate risk models (Tables5 and 6). Nearly all predictors display a similar influence on mortality in both subgroups. Two exceptions are age (better prognosis of preserved EF compared with reduced EF HF is more pronounced at younger ages) and systolic blood pressure, which have a stronger inverse association with mortality in patients with reduced EF. These two interactions are incorporated into the integer risk score, as displayed in Figure1.
Our meta-analysis of 30 cohort studies enables exploration of between-study differences in mortality risk. Separately, for each of the 10 largest studies, we calculated Poisson regression models for the same 13 predictors. Informal inspection of models across studies shows a consistent pattern to be expected, given there are no surprises among the selected predictors.
An additional model, with study included as a fixed effect (rather than a random effect), reveals some between-study variation in mortality risk not captured by the predictor variables. This may be due to geographic variations or unidentified patient-selection criteria varying across registries and clinical trials, though overall patients in registries and trials appear at similar risk. Also, calendar year may be relevant since improved treatment of HF may enhance prognosis in more recent times. We will explore these issues in a subsequent publication.
The integer risk score gives a very powerful discrimination of patients' mortality risk over 3 years, and also has excellent goodness-of-fit to the data across all 30 studies combined (Figures3 and 4). Specifically, the score facilitates the identification of low-risk patients, e.g. score <17 has an expected 90% 3-year survival, and very high-risk patients, e.g. score ≥33 has an expected 30% 3-year survival.
We recognize some limitations. In combining evidence across multiple studies, we inevitably encountered substantial missing data (Table3), with a few variables (e.g. body mass index, HF duration) missing in some entire cohorts. To overcome this problem, we used sophisticated computer-intensive multiple imputation methods. In addition, we have checked the robustness of our overall findings for each predictor by separate analyses within each cohort where full data for that predictor were available.
Conventional good practice seeks to validate a new risk score on external data. That is important when a risk score arises from a single cohort in one particular setting, especially when that cohort has limited size. Here, the circ*mstances are different. We have a global meta-analysis of 30 cohorts with the largest numbers of patients and deaths ever investigated in HF. We found an internal consistency across studies in risk predictors, but inevitably found between-cohort differences in mortality risk not attributable to known risk factors, probably due to geographic variations and differing patient-selection criteria. Thus, no single external cohort can provide a sensible, generalizable validation of our risk model. We feel that internal validation found across studies is sufficient.
There exist several other risk scores for predicting survival in HF.1–8 Best known is the Seattle Heart Failure Model.1 It was developed from a small database, 1125 patients in the PRAISE clinical trial,22 confined to patients with severe HF: NYHA class III B or IV and EF ≤30%. Such patients account for <20% of patients in our meta-analysis. Thus the robustness, applicability, and generalizability of the Seattle model are somewhat limited. Some variables in the Seattle model, e.g. serum sodium and haemoglobin, were not found to be independent predictors for inclusion in our model. Also, the Seattle model does not include diabetes, body mass index, and serum creatinine, well established risk factors in HF. A recently developed predictive model for survival is from the 3C-HF Study,2 but its relatively small size and only 1 year follow-up is limiting.
Any new risk score's success depends on the patient variables available for inclusion. Current knowledge of biomarkers in HF is inevitably ahead of what data are available across multiple cohort studies. For instance, natriuretic peptide level markedly influences prognosis in HF,8,23 but could not be included in our model. In principle, its inclusion would enhance further the excellent prognostic discrimination we achieved with routinely collected long-established predictors. The risk score is most applicable for patients at a stable point in their disease, the short-term impact of acute HF events being a separate matter.
In conclusion, the risk score developed here on a huge database of 30 cohort studies provides a uniquely robust and generalizable tool to quantify individual patients' prognosis in HF. The simplified integer score, accessible by the website www.heartfailurerisk.org makes findings routinely usable by busy clinicians. Such immediate awareness of a patient's risk profile is of value in determining the most appropriate management and treatment of their HF.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at European Heart Journal online.
Funding
K.K.P. is supported by the Heart Foundation of New Zealand. The work was supported by grants from the New Zealand National Heart Foundation, the University of Auckland, and the University of Glasgow. R.N.D. holds the New Zealand Heart Foundation Chair in Heart Health.
Conflict of interest: none declared.
References
1
Levy WC Mozaffarian D Linker DT Sutradhar SC Anker SD Cropp AB Anand I Maggioni A Burton P Sullivan MD Pitt B Poole-Wilson PA Mann DL Packer M
The Seattle heart failure model: prediction of survival in heart failure
,
Circulation
,
2006
,vol.
113
(pg.
1424
-
1433
)
2
Senni M Parrella P De Maria R Cottini C Böhm M Ponikowski P Filippatos G Tribouilloy C Di Lenarda A Oliva F Pulignano G Cicoira M Nodari S Porcu M Cioffi G Gabrielli D Parodi O Ferrazzi P Gavazzi A
Predicting heart failure outcome from cardiac and comorbid conditions: the 3C-HF score
,
Int J Cardiol
Advance Access published November 28, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.10.071
OpenURL Placeholder Text
3
Poco*ck SJ Wang D Pfeffer MA Yusuf S McMurray JJ Swedberg KB Ostergren J Michelson EL Pieper KS Granger CB
Predictors of mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure
,
Eur Heart J
,
2006
,vol.
27
(pg.
65
-
75
)
4
O'Connor CM Whellan DJ Wojdyla D Leifer E Clare RM Ellis SJ Fine LJ Fleg JL Zannad F Keteyian SJ Kitzman DW Kraus WE Rendall D Pina IL Cooper LS Fiuzat M Lee KL
Factors related to morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure with systolic dysfunction: the HF-ACTION predictive risk score model
,
Circ Heart Fail
,
2012
,vol.
5
(pg.
63
-
71
)
5
O'Connor CM Hasselblad V Mehta RH Tasissa G Califf RM Fiuzat M Rogers JG Leier CV Stevenson LW
Triage after hospitalization with advanced heart failure: the ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) risk model and discharge score
,
J Am Coll Cardiol
,
2010
,vol.
55
(pg.
872
-
878
)
6
O'Connor CM Abraham WT Albert NM Clare R Gattis Stough W Gheorghiade M Greenberg BH Yancy CW Young JB Fonarow GC
Predictors of mortality after discharge in patients hospitalized with heart failure: an analysis from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF)
,
Am Heart J
,
2008
,vol.
156
(pg.
662
-
673
)
7
Lee DS Austin PC Rouleau JL Liu PP Naimark D Tu JV
Predicting mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure: derivation and validation of a clinical model
,
JAMA
,
2003
,vol.
290
(pg.
2581
-
2587
)
8
Wedel H McMurray JJ Lindberg M Wikstrand J Cleland JG Cornel JH Dunselman P Hjalmarson A Kjekshus J Komajda M Kuusi T Vanhaecke J Waagstein F
Predictors of fatal and non-fatal outcomes in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA): incremental value of apolipoprotein A-1, high-sensitivity C-reactive peptide and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide
,
Eur J Heart Fail
,
2009
,vol.
11
(pg.
281
-
291
)
9
Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC)
The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta-analysis
,
Eur Heart J
,
2012
,vol.
33
(pg.
1750
-
7
)
10
White IR Royston P
Imputing missing covariate values for the Cox model
,
Stat Med
,
2009
,vol.
28
(pg.
1982
-
1998
)
11
White IR Royston P Wood AM
Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice
,
Stat Med
,
2011
,vol.
30
(pg.
377
-
399
)
12
Gelman A
Bayesian Data Analysis
,
2004
2nd ed
London, New York
Chapman & Hall
OpenURL Placeholder Text
13
Rubin DB
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
,
1987
New York; Chichester
Wiley
OpenURL Placeholder Text
14
Gustafsson F Torp-Pedersen C Brendorp B Seibaek M Burchardt H Kober L
Long-term survival in patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure: relation to preserved and reduced left ventricular systolic function
,
Eur Heart J
,
2003
,vol.
24
(pg.
863
-
870
)
15
Curtis JP Sokol SI Wang Y Rathore SS Ko DT Jadbabaie F Portnay EL Marshalko SJ Radford MJ Krumholz HM
The association of left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality, and cause of death in stable outpatients with heart failure
,
J Am Coll Cardiol
,
2003
,vol.
42
(pg.
736
-
742
)
16
Pfeffer MA Swedberg K Granger CB Held P McMurray JJ Michelson EL Olofsson B Ostergren J Yusuf S Poco*ck S
Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme
,
Lancet
,
2003
,vol.
362
(pg.
759
-
766
)
17
Torp-Pedersen C Kober L Carlsen JE Akkan D Bruun NE Dacoronias D Dickstein K Haghfelt T Ohlin H McMurray JJ
A randomised trial of a pre-synaptic stimulator of DA2-dopaminergic and alpha2-adrenergic receptors on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure
,
Eur J Heart Fail
,
2008
,vol.
10
(pg.
89
-
95
)
18
Tarantini L fa*ggiano P Senni M Lucci D Bertoli D Porcu M Opasich C Tavazzi L Maggioni AP
Clinical features and prognosis associated with a preserved left ventricular systolic function in a large cohort of congestive heart failure outpatients managed by cardiologists. Data from the Italian Network on Congestive Heart Failure
,
Ital Heart J
,
2002
,vol.
3
(pg.
656
-
664
)
19
Martinez-Selles M Garcia Robles JA Prieto L Dominguez Munoa M Frades E Diaz-Castro O Almendral J
Systolic dysfunction is a predictor of long term mortality in men but not in women with heart failure
,
Eur Heart J
,
2003
,vol.
24
(pg.
2046
-
2053
)
20
Kenchaiah S Poco*ck SJ Wang D Finn PV Zornoff LA Skali H Pfeffer MA Yusuf S Swedberg K Michelson EL Granger CB McMurray JJ Solomon SD
Body mass index and prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure: insights from the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program
,
Circulation
,
2007
,vol.
116
(pg.
627
-
636
)
21
Fox K Ford I Steg PG Tendera M Robertson M Ferrari R
Heart rate as a prognostic risk factor in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial
,
Lancet
,
2008
,vol.
372
(pg.
817
-
821
)
22
Packer M O'Connor CM Ghali JK Pressler ML Carson PE Belkin RN Miller AB Neuberg GW Frid D Wertheimer JH Cropp AB DeMets DL
Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure. Prospective randomized amlodipine survival evaluation study group
,
N Engl J Med
,
1996
,vol.
335
(pg.
1107
-
1114
)
23
Pfister R Diedrichs H Schiedermair A Rosenkranz S Hellmich M Erdmann E Schneider CA
Prognostic impact of NT-proBNP and renal function in comparison to contemporary multi-marker risk scores in heart failure patients
,
Eur J Heart Fail
,
2008
,vol.
10
(pg.
315
-
320
)
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2012. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Topic:
- angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors
- smoking
- beta-blockers
- diabetes mellitus
- chronic obstructive airway disease
- systolic blood pressure
- angiotensin receptor antagonists
- heart failure
- left ventricle
- diabetes mellitus, type 2
- follow-up
- mortality
- ejection fraction
- creatinine tests, serum
- new york heart association classification
Issue Section:
Clinical Research > Chronic heart failure
Download all slides
Comments
1 Comment
Comments (1)
Prognosis in Herat Failure
30 January 2013
Michele Senni (with Paolo Ferrero, Antonello Gavazzi Cardiovascular Department 'Papa Giovanni XXXIII' Hospital, bergamo)
Director, Cardiovascular Medicine, Cardiovascular department, 'Papa Giovanni XXXIII' Hospital Bergamo
Poco*ck et al. developed a prognostic score built on a uniquely large database accounting for 39.372 patients enrolled in 30 cohort studies. After the preliminary application of the MAGGIC score in our clinical practice, we observed that the risk estimation obtained in some subset of more compromised outpatients with relevant comorbidities, occasionally appeared extremely lower than expected . This finding, likely due to a poor calibration of the score on this particular subset of patients is almost unavoidable, even by using a very accurate prognostic model, such as the MAGGIC. In the effort to increase the sample size, data coming from different sources are often gathered together incurring in the problem of missing variables. In fact, as stated by the authors in the limitations, some covariates included in the MAGGIC are almost completelymissing in some cohorts. The authors brilliantly managed this problem , using multiple imputation technique, (1). However, caution is needed when more than 30-50 per cent missing data are to be imputed, as for the case of creatinine (51%), body max index (44%), COPD (43%), heart failure duration (32%) and systolic blood pressure (31%). In this particular case, multiple imputation remains valid under the assumption that imputed and available data are extracted from the same population, postulating that the whole data-set is extracted from a quite hom*ogeneous population. Based on this, internal cross-validation, although able to check for accuracy and consistency of the prognostic model, might not grant its goodness in truly independent clinical settings (1,2).According to this background, external validation of a score on truly independent settings, appear as a pivotal process to completely explore its 'transportability' into daily clinical practice . This latter encompasses different components: historical, geographic and methodological (3-5). In particular, methodological transportability requires that the model maintains accuracy when it is tested on data collected with different methods. This is the case, for example, of therapy, which might be more accurately up titrated to higher doses in clinical trials and registries, as compared with community settings. In conclusion, we would like to underlie that building up the clinical penetrability of a score in daily practice is an ongoing process, whose main component is the external validation of accuracy of prognostic predictions on different independent community based cohorts (5) .
Dr Paolo Ferrero Cardiovascular Department 'Papa Giovanni XXIII' Hospital Bergamo , Italy
1.White IR and Carlin J. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat. Med. 2010;29:2920-31
2.White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30:377-399
3.Senni M, Parrella P, De Maria R, et al. Predicting heart failure outcome from cardiac and comorbid conditions: the 3C-HF score. Int J Cardiol. Advance Access published November 28, 2011
4.Altman D, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Statist. Med. 2000;19:453-73
5.Justice A, Covinsky KE, and Berlin J. Assessing the Generalizability of Prognostic Information. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:515-24
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Submitted on 30/01/2013 7:00 PM GMT
Advertisem*nt intended for healthcare professionals
Citations
Views
43,671
Altmetric
More metrics information
Metrics
Total Views 43,671
34,724 Pageviews
8,947 PDF Downloads
Since 1/1/2017
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
January 2017 | 22 |
February 2017 | 135 |
March 2017 | 179 |
April 2017 | 118 |
May 2017 | 148 |
June 2017 | 91 |
July 2017 | 97 |
August 2017 | 110 |
September 2017 | 112 |
October 2017 | 138 |
November 2017 | 194 |
December 2017 | 407 |
January 2018 | 530 |
February 2018 | 621 |
March 2018 | 785 |
April 2018 | 844 |
May 2018 | 927 |
June 2018 | 876 |
July 2018 | 699 |
August 2018 | 738 |
September 2018 | 717 |
October 2018 | 580 |
November 2018 | 610 |
December 2018 | 681 |
January 2019 | 554 |
February 2019 | 511 |
March 2019 | 660 |
April 2019 | 664 |
May 2019 | 694 |
June 2019 | 555 |
July 2019 | 651 |
August 2019 | 553 |
September 2019 | 517 |
October 2019 | 494 |
November 2019 | 408 |
December 2019 | 326 |
January 2020 | 345 |
February 2020 | 458 |
March 2020 | 362 |
April 2020 | 389 |
May 2020 | 265 |
June 2020 | 421 |
July 2020 | 369 |
August 2020 | 351 |
September 2020 | 455 |
October 2020 | 452 |
November 2020 | 484 |
December 2020 | 418 |
January 2021 | 452 |
February 2021 | 510 |
March 2021 | 550 |
April 2021 | 430 |
May 2021 | 540 |
June 2021 | 471 |
July 2021 | 425 |
August 2021 | 438 |
September 2021 | 439 |
October 2021 | 475 |
November 2021 | 471 |
December 2021 | 389 |
January 2022 | 464 |
February 2022 | 559 |
March 2022 | 570 |
April 2022 | 718 |
May 2022 | 567 |
June 2022 | 556 |
July 2022 | 534 |
August 2022 | 478 |
September 2022 | 540 |
October 2022 | 552 |
November 2022 | 616 |
December 2022 | 461 |
January 2023 | 482 |
February 2023 | 482 |
March 2023 | 552 |
April 2023 | 445 |
May 2023 | 552 |
June 2023 | 608 |
July 2023 | 966 |
August 2023 | 802 |
September 2023 | 459 |
October 2023 | 476 |
November 2023 | 536 |
December 2023 | 489 |
January 2024 | 579 |
February 2024 | 543 |
March 2024 | 549 |
April 2024 | 561 |
May 2024 | 572 |
June 2024 | 98 |
Email alerts
Article activity alert
Advance article alerts
New issue alert
Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic
See also
-
Commentary
- Chronic heart failure: a look through the rear view mirror
The effects of aetiology on outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy in the CARE-HF trial
Selection of patients for beta-blocking treatment after myocardial infarction
The prognostic impact of coronary flow-reserve assessed by Doppler echocardiography in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy
Captopril adjuvant therapy to beta-blockers and nitrates improves post-myocardial infarction left ventricular performance
Related articles in PubMed
Citing articles via
Google Scholar
-
Latest
-
Most Read
-
Most Cited
More from Oxford Academic
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Medicine
Medicine and Health
Books
Journals
Having trouble contacting the network. Please try again in a moment or two.
Advertisem*nt intended for healthcare professionals