TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation and comparison of seven mortality prediction models for hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure
AU - Lagu, Tara
AU - Pekow, Penelope S.
AU - Shieh, Meng Shiou
AU - Stefan, Mihaela
AU - Pack, Quinn R.
AU - Kashef, Mohammad Amin
AU - Atreya, Auras R.
AU - Valania, Gregory
AU - Slawsky, Mara T.
AU - Lindenauer, Peter K.
N1 - Funding Information:
Drs Lagu and Shieh were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01HL114745. Dr Stefan is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K01HL114631. Dr Pack was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number KL2TR001063.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - heart failure
KW - hospitalization
KW - inpatients
KW - mortality prediction
KW - treatment outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84983493351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84983493351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002912
DO - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002912
M3 - Article
C2 - 27514749
AN - SCOPUS:84983493351
SN - 1941-3289
VL - 9
JO - Circulation: Heart Failure
JF - Circulation: Heart Failure
IS - 8
M1 - e002912
ER -