National Heart and Lung Institute, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Am J Cardiol. 2021 Dec 1;160:53-59. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.08.035. Epub 2021 Oct 3.
A multivariate risk score model was proposed by Sieira et al in 2017 for sudden death in Brugada syndrome; their validation in 150 patients was highly encouraging, with a C-index of 0.81; however, this score is yet to be validated by an independent group. A total of 192 records of patients with Brugada syndrome were collected from 2 centers in the United Kingdom and retrospectively scored according to a score model by Sieira et al. Data were compiled summatively over follow-up to mimic regular risk re-evaluation as per current guidelines. Sudden cardiac death survivor data were considered perievent to ascertain the utility of the score before cardiac arrest. Scores were compared with actual outcomes. Sensitivity in our cohort was 22.7%, specificity was 57.6%, and C-index was 0.58. In conclusion, up to 75% of cardiac arrest survivors in this cohort would not have been offered a defibrillator if evaluated before their event. This casts doubt on the utility of the score model for primary prevention of sudden death. Inherent issues with modern risk scoring strategies decrease the likelihood of success even in robustly designed tools such as the Sieira score model.
2017 年,Sieira 等人提出了一种用于 Brugada 综合征猝死的多变量风险评分模型;他们在 150 名患者中的验证结果非常令人鼓舞,C 指数为 0.81;然而,该评分尚未得到独立小组的验证。共从英国的 2 个中心收集了 192 例 Brugada 综合征患者的记录,并根据 Sieira 等人的评分模型进行回顾性评分。根据当前指南,通过汇总随访数据进行定期风险再评估来编制数据。考虑到心脏骤停前的事件数据,以确定评分的效用。将评分与实际结果进行比较。我们队列中的敏感性为 22.7%,特异性为 57.6%,C 指数为 0.58。总之,如果在该队列中的心脏骤停幸存者事件发生前进行评估,多达 75%的幸存者将不会被植入除颤器。这对评分模型用于猝死的一级预防的效用提出了质疑。即使在设计稳健的工具(如 Sieira 评分模型)中,现代风险评分策略的固有问题也降低了成功的可能性。