Medline ® Abstract for Reference 48
of 'Palliative care for patients with advanced heart failure: Indications and strategies'
Validation and Comparison of Seven Mortality Prediction Models for Hospitalized Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.
Lagu T, Pekow PS, Shieh MS, Stefan M, Pack QR, Kashef MA, Atreya AR, Valania G, Slawsky MT, Lindenauer PK
Circ Heart Fail. 2016;9(8)
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) inpatient mortality prediction models can help clinicians make treatment decisions and researchers conduct observational studies; however, published models have not been validated in external populations.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the performance of 7 models that predict inpatient mortality in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: 4 HF-specific mortality prediction models developed from 3 clinical databases (ADHERE [Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry], EFFECT study [Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment], and GWTG-HF registry [Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure]); 2 administrative HF mortality prediction models (Premier, Premier+); and a model that uses clinical data but is not specific for HF (Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score [LAPS2]). Using a multihospital, electronic health record-derived data set (HealthFacts [Cerner Corp], 2010-2012), we identified patients≥18 years admitted with HF. Of 13 163 eligible patients, median age was 74 years; half were women; and 27% were black. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Model-predicted mortality ranges varied: Premier+ (0.8%-23.1%), LAPS2 (0.7%-19.0%), ADHERE (1.2%-17.4%), EFFECT (1.0%-12.8%), GWTG-Eapen (1.2%-13.8%), and GWTG-Peterson (1.1%-12.8%). The LAPS2 and Premier models outperformed the clinical models (C statistics: LAPS2 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.78-0.82], Premier models 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.79-0.83]and 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.74-0.78], and clinical models 0.68 to 0.70).
CONCLUSIONS: Four clinically derived, inpatient, HF mortality models exhibited similar performance, with C statistics near 0.70. Three other models, 1 developed in electronic health record data and 2 developed in administrative data, also were predictive, with C statistics from 0.76 to 0.80. Because every model performed acceptably, the decision to use a given model should depend on practical concerns and intended use.
From the Center for Quality of Care Research (T.L., P.S.P., M.-S.S., M.S., Q.R.P., G.V., M.T.S., P.K.L.), Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine (T.L., M.S., P.K.L.), and Division of Cardiology (Q.R.P., M.A.K., A.R.A., G.V., M.T.S.), Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (T.L., M.S., Q.R.P., M.A.K., A.R.A., G.V., M.T.S., P.K.L.); and School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (P.S.P.). firstname.lastname@example.org.