Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Performance of Prognostic Risk Scores in Heart Failure Patients: Do Sex Differences Exist?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Outcome after heart-lung or lung transplantation in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Uafklaret dyspnø.

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Sex differences in the performance of prognostic risk scores in heart failure (HF) patients have not previously been investigated. We examined the performance of 2 commonly used scores in predicting mortality and a composite end point consisting of ventricular assist device, heart transplantation, or mortality in women vs men with HF.

METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 1,136 (25% women) consecutive ambulatory adult HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 40%) followed at a single institution from 2000 to 2012. Discrimination, calibration, and absolute risk reclassification of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score to predict 1- and 3-year outcomes were compared between women and men.

RESULTS: At 1- and 3-year follow-ups, 116 (22% women) and 231 (21% women) patients died, respectively. Survival was equal between sexes (P = 0.41). The SHFM and the MAGGIC score showed similar discriminatory capacity in women (c-statistics 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.92, and 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.83) and men (c-statistics 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.79, and 0.70, 95% CI 0.64-0.75). There was no difference in the predicted and observed 1-year mortality by the scores in both sexes. Compared with the SHFM, the MAGGIC score better reclassified 10% (95% CI 7%-14%) of women and 18% (95% CI 15%-20%) of men. At 3-year follow-up, similar results were seen for discrimination, whereas both scores overestimated mortality with more marked overestimation in women. The results were reproducible for the composite end point, with improved calibration at 3-year follow-up in both scores.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of the MAGGIC score in both women and men owing to better risk classification.

Original languageEnglish
JournalThe Canadian journal of cardiology
Volume36
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)45-53
Number of pages9
ISSN0828-282X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2020

ID: 58959742