Group In Chronic Heart Failure Score Research Articles

The Metabolic Vulnerability Index: A Novel Marker for Mortality Prediction in Heart Failure

BackgroundInflammation and protein energy malnutrition are associated with heart failure (HF) mortality. The metabolic vulnerability index (MVX) is derived from markers of inflammation and malnutrition and measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. MVX has not been examined in HF. ObjectivesThe authors sought to examine the prognostic value of MVX in patients with HF. MethodsThe authors prospectively assembled a population-based cohort of patients with HF from 2003 to 2012 and measured MVX scores with a nuclear magnetic resonance scan from plasma collected at enrollment. Patients were divided into 4 MVX score groups and followed until March 31, 2021. ResultsThe authors studied 1,382 patients (median age: 78 years; 48% women). The median MVX score was 64.6. Patients with higher MVX were older, more likely to be male, have atrial fibrillation, and have a higher Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score. Higher MVX was associated with mortality independent of Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, ejection fraction, and other prognostic biomarkers. Compared to those with the lowest MVX, the HRs for MVX groups 2, 3, and 4 were 1.1 (95% CI: 0.9-1.4), 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2-1.9), and 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2-1.9), respectively (Ptrend < 0.001). Measures of model improvement document the added value of MVX in HF for classifying the risk of death beyond the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score and other biomarkers. ConclusionsIn this HF community cohort, MVX was strongly associated with mortality independently of established clinical factors and improved mortality risk classification beyond clinically validated markers. These data underscore the potential of MVX to stratify risk in HF.

Predicting 1-Year Mortality in Outpatients With Heart Failure With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Do Empiric Models Outperform Physician Intuitive Estimates? A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Many studies have demonstrated that physicians often err in estimating patient prognosis. No studies have directly compared physician to model predictive performance in heart failure (HF). We aimed to compare the accuracy of physician versus model predictions of 1-year mortality. This multicenter prospective cohort study on 11 HF clinics in 5 provinces in Canada included consecutive consented outpatients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%). By collecting clinical data, we calculated predicted 1-year mortality using the Seattle HF Model (SHFM), the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF score, and the HF Meta-Score. HF cardiologists and family doctors, blinded to model predictions, estimated patient 1-year mortality. During 1-year follow-up, we recorded the composite end point of mortality, urgent ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant. We compared physicians and model discrimination (C statistic), calibration (observed versus predicted event rate), and risk reclassification. The study included 1643 patients with ambulatory HF with a mean age of 65 years, 24% female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 28%. Over 1-year follow-up, 9% had an event. The SHFM had the best discrimination (SHFM C statistic 0.76; HF Meta-Score 0.73; Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure 0.70) and calibration. Physicians' discrimination differed little (0.75 for HF cardiologists and 0.73 for family doctors) but both physician groups substantially overestimated risk by >10% in both low- and high-risk patients (poor calibration). In risk reclassification analysis, among patients without events, the SHFM better classified 51% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 43% in comparison to family doctors. In patients with events, the SHFM erroneously assigned lower risk to 44% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 34% in comparison to family doctors. Family doctors and HF cardiologists showed adequate risk discrimination, with however substantial overestimation of absolute risk. Predictive models showed higher accuracy. Incorporating models in family and HF cardiology practices may improve patient care and resource use in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. URL: https://www. gov; Unique identifier: NCT04009798.

Multimarker approach including CRP, sST2 and GDF-15 for prognostic stratification in stable heart failure.

AimsInflammation and cardiac remodelling are common and synergistic pathways in heart failure (HF). Emerging biomarkers such as soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), which are linked to inflammation and fibrosis process, have been proposed as prognosis factors. However, their potential additive values remain poorly investigated.Methods and resultsHere, we aimed at evaluating inflammatory and remodelling biomarkers to predict both short‐term and long‐term mortality in a population with chronic HF in comparison with other classical clinical or biological markers (i.e. N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, hs‐cTnT, C‐reactive protein) alone or using meta‐analysis global group in chronic HF risk score in a cohort of 182 patients followed during 80 months (interquartile range: 12.3–90.0). Proportional hazard assumption does not hold for sST2 and C‐reactive protein, and follow‐up was split into short term (less than 1 year), midterm (between 1 and 5 years), and long term (after 5 years). In univariate analysis, C‐reactive protein and sST2 were predictive of short‐term mortality but not of middle term and long term whereas GDF‐15 was predictive of short and mid‐term but not of long‐term mortality. In a multivariate model after adjustment for meta‐analysis global group in chronic HF score including the three markers, only sST2 was predictive of short‐term mortality (P = 0.0225), and only GDF‐15 was predictive of middle term mortality (P = 0.0375). None of the markers was predictive of long‐term mortality.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that both sST2 and GDF‐15 significantly improve the prognosis evaluation of HF patients and suggest that the value of GDF‐15 is more sustained overtime and could predict middle term events.