Validation and comparison of seven mortality prediction models for hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Tara Lagu*, Penelope S. Pekow, Meng Shiou Shieh, Mihaela Stefan, Quinn R. Pack, Mohammad Amin Kashef, Auras R. Atreya, Gregory Valania, Mara T. Slawsky, Peter K. Lindenauer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

71 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere002912
JournalCirculation: Heart Failure
Volume9
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Funding

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.

Keywords

  • heart failure
  • hospitalization
  • inpatients
  • mortality prediction
  • treatment outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validation and comparison of seven mortality prediction models for hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this