Several heart failure (HF) web-based risk scores are currently used in clinical practice. Currently, we lack head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of risk scores. This study aimed to assess correlation and mortality prediction performance of Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC-HF) risk score, which includes clinical variables + medications; Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), which includes clinical variables + treatments + analytes; PARADIGM Risk of Events and Death in the Contemporary Treatment of Heart Failure (PREDICT-HF) and Barcelona Bio-Heart Failure (BCN-Bio-HF) risk calculator, which also include biomarkers, like N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of comorbidities, fragility, and quality of life (QOL) on long-term prognosis in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with midrange left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF), an unexplored area.Patients and MethodsConsecutive patients prospectively evaluated at an HF clinic between August 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively analyzed on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction category. We compared patients with HFmrEF (n=185) to those with reduced (HFrEF; n=1058) and preserved (HFpEF; n=162) ejection fraction. Fragility was defined as 1 or more abnormal evaluations on 4 standardized geriatric scales (Barthel Index, Older Americans Resources and Services scale, Pfeiffer Test, and abbreviated-Geriatric Depression Scale). The QOL was assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. A comorbidity score (0-7) was constructed. All-cause death, HF-related hospitalization, and the composite end point of both were assessed.ResultsComorbidities and QOL scores were similar in HFmrEF (2.41±1.5 and 30.1±18.3, respectively) and HFrEF (2.30±1.4 and 30.8±18.5, respectively) and were higher in HFpEF (3.02±1.5, P<.001, and 36.5±20.7, P=.003, respectively). No statistically significant differences in fragility between HFmrEF (48.6%) and HFrEF (41.9%) (P=.09) nor HFpEF (54.3%) (P=.29) were found. In univariate analysis, the association of comorbidities, QOL, and fragility with the 3 end points was higher for HFmrEF than for HFrEF and HFpEF. In multivariate analysis, comorbidities were independently associated with the 3 end points (P≤.001), and fragility was independently associated with all-cause death and the composite end point (P<.001) in HFmrEF.ConclusionComorbidities and fragility are independent predictors of outcomes in ambulatory patients with HFmrHF and should be considered in the routine clinical assessment of HFmrEF.

No abstract

AimsIn ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (HF), congestion and decongestion assessment may be challenging. The aim of this study is to assess the value of lung ultrasound (LUS) in outpatients with HF in characterizing decompensation and recompensation, and in outcomes prediction. Methods and resultsHeart failure outpatients attended to establish HF decompensation were included. LUS was blindly performed at baseline (LUS1) and at clinical recompensation (LUS2). B-lines were counted in eight scanned areas. Diagnosis of no HF decompensation vs. right-sided, left-sided, or global HF decompensation, and patients' management were performed by physicians blinded to LUS1. Outcome was the composite of all-cause death or HF-related hospitalization. Two hundred and thirty-three suspicions of HF decompensation were included in 187 patients (71.4 ± 11.3 years, 66.8% men). Mean B-line (LUS1) was 17.6 ± 11.2 vs. 3.7 ± 4.5 for episodes with and without HF decompensation, respectively (P < 0.001). Global HF decompensation showed the highest number of B-lines (20.6 ± 11), followed by left-sided (19.7 ± 11.6) and right-sided (13.5 ± 9.8). B-lines declined to 6.9 ± 6.7 (LUS2) (P < 0.001 vs. LUS1) after treatment, within a mean time of 24.2 ± 23.7 days [median 13.5 days (interquartile range 6-40)]. B-lines were significantly associated with the composite endpoint at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04 [95% confidence interval 1.01-1.07], P = 0.02), but not at 60 (P = 0.22) or 180 days (P = 0.54). In multivariable analysis, B-line number remained as an independent predictor of the composite endpoint at 30 days, [HR 1.04 (1.01-1.07), P = 0.014], with a 4% increase risk per B-line added. B-lines correlated significantly with CA125 (R = 0.30, P = 0.001). Conclusions Lung ultrasound supports the diagnostic work-up of congestion and decongestion in chronic HF outpatients and identifies patients at high risk of short-term events.