Akoudad Salima, Dabiri Abkenari Lara, Schaer Beat A, Sticherling Christian, Levy Wayne C, Jordaens Luc, Theuns Dominic A M J
Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Cardiology, University of Basel Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Am J Cardiol. 2017 May 1;119(9):1414-1420. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.01.035. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
Several multivariate risk score models were developed to predict prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). We compared 3 models with regard to prediction of mortality in patients with HF who received an implantable defibrillator (ICD) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D), as primary prevention of sudden death. The study cohort consisted of 823 patients (ICD = 410; CRT-D = 413). The evaluated models were the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) score, and an adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI). End point was the performance of the models to predict all-cause mortality at 5 years. This was determined by c-statistics, for both subgroups. Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the relations between the risk score models, their individual components and mortality, and its applicability to the entire population. Cumulative mortality was 4.9% at 1 year and 21.1% at 5 years. Discriminatory power for 5-year mortality was highest for the SHFM (0.73; p <0.001) compared with the MADIT II score and the aCCI for the entire population. SHFM performed better than the MADIT II score for CRT-D group. In the entire population, the SHFM and the aCCI were significant predictors of mortality in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.43 vs hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.22). The strongest individual components were age, HF, impaired renal function, and cancer, whereas CRT-D use was no predictor. In conclusion, the SHFM has the best discriminatory power for 5-year mortality in patients with HF with an ICD or CRT-D. The aCCI and MADIT II scores are less powerful but viable alternatives.
为预测心力衰竭(HF)患者的预后,开发了几种多变量风险评分模型。我们比较了3种模型对接受植入式除颤器(ICD)或心脏再同步治疗除颤器(CRT-D)作为猝死一级预防的HF患者死亡率的预测情况。研究队列包括823例患者(ICD = 410例;CRT-D = 413例)。评估的模型有西雅图心力衰竭模型(SHFM)、多中心自动除颤器植入试验II(MADIT II)评分和调整后的Charlson合并症指数(aCCI)。终点是模型预测5年全因死亡率的表现。这通过c统计量对两个亚组进行确定。采用多变量分析来分析风险评分模型、其各个组成部分与死亡率之间的关系,以及其在整个人口中的适用性。1年时累积死亡率为4.9%,5年时为21.1%。与MADIT II评分和aCCI相比,SHFM对整个人口5年死亡率的鉴别能力最高(0.73;p <0.001)。在CRT-D组中,SHFM的表现优于MADIT II评分。在整个人口中,SHFM和aCCI在多变量分析中是死亡率的显著预测因素(风险比1.90,95%置信区间1.49至2.43,vs风险比1.11,95%置信区间1.01至1.22)。最强的个体组成部分是年龄、HF、肾功能受损和癌症,而使用CRT-D不是预测因素。总之,SHFM对接受ICD或CRT-D的HF患者5年死亡率具有最佳鉴别能力。aCCI和MADIT II评分的能力较弱,但也是可行的替代方案。