预测心房颤动患者 1 年死亡率的简单评分。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.2459/JCM.0000000000001602
Roberto Cemin, Aldo Pietro Maggioni, Lucio Gonzini, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Giuseppe Boriani, Andrea Di Lenarda, Federico Nardi, Michele Massimo Gulizia
{"title":"预测心房颤动患者 1 年死亡率的简单评分。","authors":"Roberto Cemin, Aldo Pietro Maggioni, Lucio Gonzini, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Giuseppe Boriani, Andrea Di Lenarda, Federico Nardi, Michele Massimo Gulizia","doi":"10.2459/JCM.0000000000001602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional scores as CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc are suitable for predicting stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have shown to be also associated with mortality. Other more complex scores have been recommended for survival prediction. The purpose of our analysis was to test the performance of different clinical scores in predicting 1-year mortality in AF patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc scores were calculated for AF patients of the BLITZ-AF register and compared to R2-CHADS2, R2-CHA2DS2-Vasc and CHA2DS2VASc-RAF scores in predicting 1-year survival. Scores including renal function were calculated both with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine clearance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-year vital status (1960 alive and 199 dead) was available in 2159 patients. Receiver-operating characteristic curves displayed an association of each score to all-cause mortality, with R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 being the best [area under the curve (AUC) 0.734]. Differences among the AUCs of the eight scores were not so evident, and a significant difference was found only between R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 and CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, (ClCrea)-CHA2DS2-VASC-RAF.All the scores showed a similar performance for cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with CHA2DS2VASc-RAF being the best (AUC 0.757), with a significant difference with respect to CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, and (ClCrea)CHA2DS2Vasc-RAF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More complex scores, even if with better statistical performance, do not show a clinically relevant higher capability to discriminate alive or dead patients at 12 months. The classical and well known CHA2DS2VASc score, which is routinely used all around the world, has a high sensitivity in predicting all-cause mortality (AUC 0.695; Sensit. 80.4%) and CV mortality (AUC 0.691; Sensit. 80.0%).</p><p><strong>Graphical abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/JCM/A632.</p>","PeriodicalId":15228,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simple scores to predict 1-year mortality in atrial fibrillation.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Cemin, Aldo Pietro Maggioni, Lucio Gonzini, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Giuseppe Boriani, Andrea Di Lenarda, Federico Nardi, Michele Massimo Gulizia\",\"doi\":\"10.2459/JCM.0000000000001602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional scores as CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc are suitable for predicting stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have shown to be also associated with mortality. Other more complex scores have been recommended for survival prediction. The purpose of our analysis was to test the performance of different clinical scores in predicting 1-year mortality in AF patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc scores were calculated for AF patients of the BLITZ-AF register and compared to R2-CHADS2, R2-CHA2DS2-Vasc and CHA2DS2VASc-RAF scores in predicting 1-year survival. Scores including renal function were calculated both with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine clearance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-year vital status (1960 alive and 199 dead) was available in 2159 patients. Receiver-operating characteristic curves displayed an association of each score to all-cause mortality, with R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 being the best [area under the curve (AUC) 0.734]. Differences among the AUCs of the eight scores were not so evident, and a significant difference was found only between R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 and CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, (ClCrea)-CHA2DS2-VASC-RAF.All the scores showed a similar performance for cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with CHA2DS2VASc-RAF being the best (AUC 0.757), with a significant difference with respect to CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, and (ClCrea)CHA2DS2Vasc-RAF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More complex scores, even if with better statistical performance, do not show a clinically relevant higher capability to discriminate alive or dead patients at 12 months. The classical and well known CHA2DS2VASc score, which is routinely used all around the world, has a high sensitivity in predicting all-cause mortality (AUC 0.695; Sensit. 80.4%) and CV mortality (AUC 0.691; Sensit. 80.0%).</p><p><strong>Graphical abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/JCM/A632.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001602\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001602","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:CHADS2 和 CHA2DS2-Vasc 等传统评分适用于预测心房颤动(房颤)患者的中风和全身性栓塞,并已证明与死亡率相关。其他更复杂的评分也被推荐用于生存预测。我们分析的目的是测试不同临床评分在预测心房颤动患者 1 年死亡率方面的性能:我们计算了 BLITZ-AF 登记的房颤患者的 CHADS2 和 CHA2DS2-Vasc 评分,并将其与 R2-CHADS2、R2-CHA2DS2-Vasc 和 CHA2DS2VASc-RAF 评分在预测 1 年生存率方面进行了比较。包括肾功能在内的评分均以肾小球滤过率(GFR)和肌酐清除率计算:结果:2159 名患者的一年生存状况(1960 人存活,199 人死亡)。接收器工作特征曲线显示,每个评分都与全因死亡率有关,其中 R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 的效果最好[曲线下面积 (AUC) 0.734]。八个评分的 AUC 差异并不明显,只有 R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 与 CHADS2、CHA2DS2VASc、(ClCrea)-CHA2DS2-VASC-RAF 之间存在显著差异。所有评分在心血管(CV)死亡率方面的表现相似,其中 CHA2DS2VASc-RAF 的表现最好(AUC 0.757),与 CHADS2、CHA2DS2VASc 和 (ClCrea)CHA2DS2Vasc-RAF 相比差异显著:结论:更复杂的评分即使具有更好的统计性能,但在临床上并不能显示出更高的区分 12 个月后存活或死亡患者的能力。经典且广为人知的 CHA2DS2VASc 评分在预测全因死亡率(AUC 0.695;灵敏度 80.4%)和心血管死亡率(AUC 0.691;灵敏度 80.0%)方面具有很高的灵敏度。图文摘要:http://links.lww.com/JCM/A632。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Simple scores to predict 1-year mortality in atrial fibrillation.

Background: Traditional scores as CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc are suitable for predicting stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have shown to be also associated with mortality. Other more complex scores have been recommended for survival prediction. The purpose of our analysis was to test the performance of different clinical scores in predicting 1-year mortality in AF patients.

Material and methods: CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-Vasc scores were calculated for AF patients of the BLITZ-AF register and compared to R2-CHADS2, R2-CHA2DS2-Vasc and CHA2DS2VASc-RAF scores in predicting 1-year survival. Scores including renal function were calculated both with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine clearance.

Results: One-year vital status (1960 alive and 199 dead) was available in 2159 patients. Receiver-operating characteristic curves displayed an association of each score to all-cause mortality, with R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 being the best [area under the curve (AUC) 0.734]. Differences among the AUCs of the eight scores were not so evident, and a significant difference was found only between R2(ClCrea)-CHADS2 and CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, (ClCrea)-CHA2DS2-VASC-RAF.All the scores showed a similar performance for cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with CHA2DS2VASc-RAF being the best (AUC 0.757), with a significant difference with respect to CHADS2, CHA2DS2VASc, and (ClCrea)CHA2DS2Vasc-RAF.

Conclusions: More complex scores, even if with better statistical performance, do not show a clinically relevant higher capability to discriminate alive or dead patients at 12 months. The classical and well known CHA2DS2VASc score, which is routinely used all around the world, has a high sensitivity in predicting all-cause mortality (AUC 0.695; Sensit. 80.4%) and CV mortality (AUC 0.691; Sensit. 80.0%).

Graphical abstract: http://links.lww.com/JCM/A632.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
26.70%
发文量
189
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine is a monthly publication of the Italian Federation of Cardiology. It publishes original research articles, epidemiological studies, new methodological clinical approaches, case reports, design and goals of clinical trials, review articles, points of view, editorials and Images in cardiovascular medicine. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信