Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Comparative analysis of multiparametric scores in heart failure: does the type of follow-up matter?
Session:
CO7 - Insuficiência Cardíaca
Speaker:
João Agostinho
Congress:
CPC 2019
Topic:
D. Heart Failure
Theme:
10. Chronic Heart Failure
Subtheme:
10.2 Chronic Heart Failure – Epidemiology, Prognosis, Outcome
Session Type:
Comunicações Orais
FP Number:
---
Authors:
João Pedro Ribeiro Agostinho; Tiago Graça Rodrigues; Rafael Santos; Joana Rigueria ; Inês Aguiar Ricardo; Afonso Nunes Ferreira; Nelson P. Cunha; Sara Couto Pereira; Fátima Veiga; Maria Mónica Mendes Pedro; Fausto José Pinto; Dulce Brito
Abstract
<p><strong>Introduction</strong>: Multiple prediction score models have been validated to predict major adverse events in patients with heart failure (HF); however, these scores do not include variables related to the type of follow-up.</p> <p><strong>Objective</strong>: To evaluate the impact of a protocol-based follow-up program (PFP) of pts with chronic HF regarding scores accuracy for predicting 1-year hospitalizations and mortality.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong>: Data from 2 HF populations were collected: one composed of pts included in a PFP after the index-hospitalization for HF; and a second one – the control population - composed of pts hospitalized prior to the beginning of the PFP. For each pt, the risk of hospitalization and mortality at 1-year was calculated using the COACH Risk Engine, BCN Bio-HF Calculator, MAGGIC Risk Calculator and Seattle Heart Failure Model. The accuracy of each score was established using the area below the ROC curve (AUC), calibration graphs and discordance (disc) calculation. AUC comparison was established by DeLong method.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: The PFP group included 56 pts, and the control group, 106 pts, with no significant differences between groups [median age: 67 vs 68.4 years; male sex: 58 vs 55%; median ejection fraction 28.2 vs 30.5%; functional class II: 60.7 vs 56.2%, I: 30.4 vs 31.9; p =NS). Hospitalization and mortality rates were significantly lower in the PFP group (21.4 vs 54.7, P <0.001, 5.4 vs 17.9, p <0.001, respectively).</p> <p>Hospitalization risk calculated by COACH and BCN Bio-HF was 25.5 and 7.45% (disc: -55 and -79%, respectively) in the PFP group, and 24.5 and 11.5% (disc: 19 and -65%) in the control group. Mortality risk calculated by COACH, Bio-HF BCN, MAGGIC and Seattle was 21.5, 8.35, 11.1 and 13.7% (disc: 298, 55, 106 and 153%) in the PSP group and 20, 13.1, 11.65 and 14.5% (disc: 12, -26, -35 and -19%) in the control group.</p> <p>When applied to the control group, COACH and BCN Bio-HF had, respectively, good (AUC 0.835) and reasonable (AUC: 0.712) accuracy to predict hospitalization. There was a significant reduction of COACH accuracy (AUC: 0.572; P =0.011) and a non-significant accuracy reduction of BCN Bio-HF (AUC: 0.536; P =0.1) when applied to the PFP group.</p> <p>All scores showed good accuracy to predict 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.863, 0.87, 0.818, 0.82, respectively) when applied to the control group. However, when applied to the PFP group, a significant predictive accuracy reduction of COACH, BCN Bio-HF and MAGGIC (AUC: 0.366, 0.642 and 0.277, P: <0.001, 0.002 and <0.001, respectively) was observed. Seattle had no significant reduction in its acuity (AUC: 0.597; P: 0.24).</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: The accuracy of scores to predict major events in pts with HF is, globally, significantly reduced when they are applied to pts under follow-up in PFP. This may be related to the magnitude of reduction in major events rate that these programs entail. In these pts, BCN Bio-HF Calculator maintained reasonable accuracy and should be regarded as the score of choice.</p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site