It is human nature to wish knowledge of the future. This fact is no more apparent than when one considers issues of life goals, priorities, and of mortality. Thus, it should not come as a surprise to us when our patients with chronic heart failure ask what their prospects for future life may be. As clinicians and patient advocates, we are obliged to provide the best information and advice that we can so that our patients are able to make decisions regarding their future. To simplify our duties, many researchers have provided algorithms to predict adverse outcomes, such as mortality. We have been treated to several risk scores, informed by easily available clinical characteristics and common laboratory results, which may predict most intermediate-term mortality in populations with HF ≈72% to 75% accuracy.1,2 These risk scores, developed from patient cohorts in randomized clinical heart failure trials, may be accessed online or via handheld wireless devices. The Seattle Heart Failure Score is likely the most popular such tool used at present. Article see p 31 The present study by Barlera et al3 in this issue of Circulation: Heart Failure outlines a new predictive tool using data from 6975 participants in the GISSI-HF (Effects of n-3 PUFA and Rosuvastatin on Mortality-Morbidity of Patients With Symptomatic CHF) trial.4 In similar fashion to previous efforts, they identify 12 baseline clinical factors of which 6 were most predictive of death. These factors included increasing age (4% per year), followed by lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (<60 mL/min), ejection fraction <40% (2.5% per unit decrease), and systolic blood pressure. The presence of New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease also conferred a worse prognosis. Although performed in a small minority of patients (1231), increasing N-terminal …