Tạp chí Tim mạch học Việt Nam

Article detail

Article detail description

Home
NGHIÊN CỨU LÂM SÀNG Issue: Số 111 BỆNH SUY TIM

Predictive value of the MAGGIC socre in heart failure paitients

Nguyễn Thị Tuyết: Bệnh viện Đa khoa Tâm Anh; Trần Ngọc Cầm: Viện Tim mạch Việt Nam, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai; Nguyễn Ngọc Quang: Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội; Nguyễn Việt Dũng: Trường Đại học Y Dược, Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội; Khổng Nam Hương: Viện Tim mạch Việt Nam, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai;
Published: August 31, 2024
Views: 190

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To description of MAGGIC Score characteristics in heart failure (HF) patients who have undergone inpatient treatment at the Vietnam National Heart Institute, Bach Mai Hospital. (2) To evaluate external validation of the MAGGIC (Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) score to predict HF hospitalizations and death twelve months after discharge.

Methods: The study included 150 patients diagnosed with HF at the Vietnam National Heart Institute, Bach Mai Hospital. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected upon admission and discharge. The MAGGIC score, 3C-HF score, EFFECT score, and ELAN-HF score were calculated for each patient. Patients were monitored for mortality and first HF re-hospitalization within twelve months after discharge. We used ROC curves and the AUC (Area Under the Curve) to assess the prognostic ability of the MAGGIC score for mortality and re-hospitalization, comparing it with other scores (3C-HF, EFFECT, ELAN-HF). Additionally, we evaluated the prognostic efficacy of incorporating NT-ProBNP into the MAGGIC score.

Results: The mean MAGGIC score in the study cohort was 20.7 ± 7.3, with a predicted 1-year post-discharge mortality rate of 10.2%. During a mean follow-up time of 12 months, 15.3% died, 20.5% were re-hospitalized for HF, and 32.7% experienced the composite outcome (death or HF hospitalizition). Patients experiencing the composite outcome had significantly higher MAGGIC scores (26.1 ± 6.6) compared to those without (18.1 ± 6.1), p<0.05. The MAGGIC score demonstrated good predictive performance for 12-month mortality (AUC=0.802, 95% CI: 0.694 – 0.910), moderate predictive performance for HF hospitalization (AUC=0.781, 95% CI: 0.691 – 0.871), and good predictive performance for the composite outcome (AUC=0.809, 95% CI: 0.737 – 0.881). Compared to the 3C-HF and EFFECT scores, the MAGGIC score showed superior predictive ability for HF hospitalization and the composite outcome, but did not significantly differ in predicting mortality. Compared to the ELAN-HF score, there was no significant difference in predictive performance. Adding NT-ProBNP to the MAGGIC score did not improve its predictive efficacy in heart failure patients.

Conclusion: The MAGGIC score is a straightforward and easily applicable tool with a strong predictive performance for mortality and composite outcomes in heart failure patients.

References

1.
Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J, et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(12):1123-1133. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.053
2.
Dunlay SM, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Epidemiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(10):591-602. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2017.65
3.
Sartipy U, Dahlström U, Edner M, et al. Predicting survival in heart failure: validation of the MAGGIC heart failure risk score in 51,043 patients from the Swedish heart failure registry. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16(2):173-179. doi:10.1111/ejhf.32
4.
Sawano M, Shiraishi Y, Kohsaka S, et al. Performance of the MAGGIC heart failure risk score and its modification with the addition of discharge natriuretic peptides. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5(4):610-619. doi:10.1002/ehf2.12278
5.
Khanam SS, Choi E, Son JW, et al. Validation of the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) heart failure risk score and the effect of adding natriuretic peptide for predicting mortality after discharge in hospitalized patients with heart failure. PloS One. 2018;13(11):e0206380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206380
6.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599-3726. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
7.
Rich JD, Burns J, Freed BH, et al. Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic (MAGGIC) Heart Failure Risk Score: Validation of a Simple Tool for the Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(20):e009594. doi:10.1161/JAHA.118.009594
8.
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation. 2017;136(6):e137-e161. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509
9.
Salah K, Kok WE, Eurlings LW, et al. A novel discharge risk model for patients hospitalised for acute decompensated heart failure incorporating N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels: a European coLlaboration on Acute decompeNsated Heart Failure: ELAN-HF Score. Heart Br Card Soc. 2014;100(2):115-125. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-303632

Files

Article Views190
Document Views0
Downloads0
Section NGHIÊN CỨU LÂM SÀNG
Issue Số 111
Category BỆNH SUY TIM