Evidence Hub

Predicting 30-Day Mortality for Patients With Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: A Cohort Study

Ò. Miró, X. Rosselló, V. Gil, F. J. Martín-Sánchez, P. Llorens, P. Herrero-Puente, J. Jacob, H. Bueno et al.

Annals of Internal Medicine, 2017

4,867 participants · 177 citations

Abstract

Background

Physicians in the emergency department (ED) need additional tools to stratify patients with acute heart failure (AHF) according to risk.

Objective

To predict mortality using data that are readily available at ED admission.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

34 Spanish EDs.

Participants

The derivation cohort included 4867 consecutive ED patients admitted during 2009 to 2011. The validation cohort comprised 3229 patients admitted in 2014.

Measurements

88 candidate risk factors and 30-day mortality.

Results

Thirteen independent risk factors were identified in the derivation cohort and were combined into an overall score, the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with AHF) score. This score predicted 30-day mortality with excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.836) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.99) and provided a steep gradient in 30-day mortality across risk groups (<2% for patients in the 2 lowest risk quintiles and 45% in the highest risk decile). These characteristics were confirmed in the validation cohort (c-statistic, 0.828). Multiple sensitivity analyses did not find important amounts of confounding or bias.

Limitations

The study was confined to a single country. Participating EDs were not selected randomly. Many patients had missing data. Measurement of some risk factors was subjective.

Conclusion

This tool has excellent discrimination and calibration and was validated in a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,867 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free