SynthesisESC heart failure2023
Performance of the heart failure risk scores in predicting 1 year mortality and short-term readmission of patients.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of the heart failure risk scores in predicting 1 year mortality and short-term readmission of patients.ESC heart failure · 2023Pooled it
- Prognostic Value of Cystatin C Across Ejection Fraction Spectrum in Heart Failure With Normal to Mild Renal Dysfunction Original Investigation.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-enhanced Electrocardiography for Heart Failure Screening and Risk Stratification.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Performance of the MAGGIC Score in Individuals with Heart Failure: Validation in a Brazilian Population.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- Prediction of 90 day mortality in elderly patients with acute HF from e-health records using artificial intelligence.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Telehealth-aided outpatient management of acute heart failure in a specialist virtual ward compared with standard care.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of growth differentiation factor-15 in heart failure among whole ejection fraction phenotypes.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Article
- [Prediction of risk of in-hospital death in patients with chronic heart failure complicated by lung infections using interpretable machine learning].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2024Article
- Heart failure 'the cancer of the heart': the prognostic role of the HLM score.ESC heart failure · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of these main scores in predicting prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS AND
resultsA total of 2008 patients who were admitted to the Fourth People's Hospital of Zigong, Sichuan, from December 2016 to June 2019 and diagnosed with HF were included in the study. We compared the prognostic predictive performance of Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC-HF) risk score, Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure programme (GWTG-HF), Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND) risk scores, the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) model, Barcelona Bio-Heart Failure (BCN-Bio-HF) risk calculator, and Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico-Heart Failure (GISSI-HF) for the endpoints. The primary endpoint was 1 year all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of 28 day readmission post-discharge. At 1 year follow-up, 44 (2.21%) patients with HF died. Discrimination analyses showed that all risk scores performed reasonably well in predicting 1 year mortality, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) fluctuating between 0.757 and 0.822. GISSI-HF showed the best discrimination with the AUC of 0.822 (0.768-0.876), followed by MAGGIC-HF, BCN-Bio-HF, ASCEND, SHFM, GWTG-HF, and ADHERE with AUCs of 0.819 (0.756-0.883), 0.812 (0.758-0.865), 0.802 (0.742-0.862), 0.787 (0.725-0.849), 0.762 (0.684-0.840), and 0.757 (0.681-0.833), respectively. All risk scores were similarly predictive of 28 day emergency readmissions, with AUCs fluctuating between 0.609 and 0.680. Overestimation of mortality occurred in all scores except the ASCEND. The risk scores remained with good prognostic discrimination in patients with biventricular HF and in the subgroup of patients taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker.
conclusionsCurrently assessed risk scores have limited clinical utility, with fair accuracy and calibration in assessing patients' 1 year risk of death and poor accuracy in assessing patients' risk of readmission. There is a need to incorporate more patient-level information, use more advanced technologies, and develop models for different subgroups of patients to achieve more practical, innovative, and accurate risk assessment tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.