2022
DOI: 10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00045-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting hospitalisation for heart failure and death in patients with, or at risk of, heart failure before first hospitalisation: a retrospective model development and external validation study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concordance gain is demonstrated using several models of adjustment incorporating various clinical variables and demographic information including the BMI‐based Framingham risk score (FRS) components, 47 that is, age, sex, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking status and BMI, plus T2D as well as CAC, TAC and prior history of CHD. We used the FRS, as it is a well‐established risk model for CHD and was originally developed for both CHD and HF, 48 and also because no single clinical risk model of HF has been fully validated and approved for use in the clinic 49,50 . Furthermore, adding a CAC score to the traditional FRS prediction model improved risk classification for future CHD events significantly 51 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Concordance gain is demonstrated using several models of adjustment incorporating various clinical variables and demographic information including the BMI‐based Framingham risk score (FRS) components, 47 that is, age, sex, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking status and BMI, plus T2D as well as CAC, TAC and prior history of CHD. We used the FRS, as it is a well‐established risk model for CHD and was originally developed for both CHD and HF, 48 and also because no single clinical risk model of HF has been fully validated and approved for use in the clinic 49,50 . Furthermore, adding a CAC score to the traditional FRS prediction model improved risk classification for future CHD events significantly 51 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the FRS, as it is a well-established risk model for CHD and was originally developed for both CHD and HF, 48 and also because no single clinical risk model of HF has been fully validated and approved for use in the clinic. 49,50 Furthermore, adding a CAC score to the traditional FRS prediction model improved risk classification for future CHD events significantly. 51 The clinical characteristics that were most likely to predict all incident HF events using the LASSO model and 500 bootstrap iterations are shown in online supplementary Figure S2.…”
Section: Bootstrap 500 Timesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants were identified from a prospective longitudinal cohort study (NCT02326324), which has been described previously 8 . Briefly, consecutive patients undergoing clinically indicated cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, UK, between 1 April 2016 and 31 May 2018 were prospectively recruited.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…perpetuity. preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in The copyright holder for this this version posted March 15, 2023. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.14.23287278 doi: medRxiv preprint predictive model had a c-statistic of 0.71 and 0.70 for HF hospitalization and death, respectively [11] ; while the c-statistics of Joshua's prediction model were 0.80 and 0.79, respectively [10][11][12] . Unfortunately, these prediction models almost all excluded or did not focus on patients receiving MHD, so they are not suitable for this specific population.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A meta-analysis reported that only 33% of the 117 published predictive models were validated in separate cohort studies, and most studies only reported moderate predictive performance [9,10] . Joanne’s predictive model had a c-statistic of 0.71 and 0.70 for HF hospitalization and death, respectively [11] ; while the c-statistics of Joshua’s prediction model were 0.80 and 0.79, respectively [1012] . Unfortunately, these prediction models almost all excluded or did not focus on patients receiving MHD, so they are not suitable for this specific population.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%