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

Rasheda Khanam, Eunhee Choi, Jung-Woo Son, Jun-Won Lee, Young Jin Youn, Junghan Yoon, Seung-Hwan Lee, Jang-Young Kim, Sung Gyun Ahn, Min-Soo Ahn, Seok-Min Kang, Sang Hong Baek, Eun-Seok Jeon, Jae-Joong Kim, Myeong-Chan Cho, Shung Chull Chae, Byung-Hee Oh, Dong-Ju Choi and Byung-Su Yoo

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 11, 1-13

Abstract: Background: In clinical practice, a risk prediction model is an effective solitary program to predict prognosis in particular patient groups. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)and N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are widely recognized outcome-predicting factors for patients with heart failure (HF).This study derived external validation of a risk score to predict 1-year mortality after discharge in hospitalized patients with HF using the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC)program data. We also assessed the effect of adding BNP or NT-proBNP to this risk score model in a Korean HF registry population. Method and results: We included 5625 patients from the Korean acute heart failure registry (KorAHF) and excluded those who died in hospital. The MAGGIC constructed a risk score to predict mortality in patients with HF by using 13 routinely available patient characteristics (age, gender, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), HF diagnosed within the last 18 months, current smoker, NYHA class, use of beta blocker, ACEI or ARB, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, creatinine, and EF). We added BNP or NT-proBNP, which are the most important biomarkers, to the MAGGIC risk scoring system in patients with HF. The outcome measure was 1-year mortality. In multivariable analysis, BNP or NT-proBNP independently predicted death. The risk score was significantly varied between alive and dead groups (30.61 ± 6.32 vs. 24.80 ± 6.81, p

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206380 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 06380&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0206380

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206380

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().