预测急性心力衰竭患者的心脏恶化:评估单一实验室指标模型与综合模型的功效。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Xiaoyu Yang, Liang Wen, Min Sun, Junlu Yang, Bin Zhang
{"title":"预测急性心力衰竭患者的心脏恶化:评估单一实验室指标模型与综合模型的功效。","authors":"Xiaoyu Yang, Liang Wen, Min Sun, Junlu Yang, Bin Zhang","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000040266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to compare the efficacy of single-indicator models versus comprehensive models in predicting cardiac deterioration events in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), providing a more precise predictive tool for clinical practice. This retrospective cohort study included 484 patients with AHF treated at our hospital between June 2018 and January 2023. Patients were categorized into a deterioration group and a non-deterioration group based on the occurrence of cardiac deterioration events within 1 year, defined as cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or the need for mechanical circulatory support. We collected clinical data, laboratory markers, and imaging indicators for analysis. Both single-indicator models and comprehensive models (clinical data + indicators) were constructed and evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to assess their predictive performance. Among the 484 AHF patients, 121 were in the deterioration group and 363 were in the non-deterioration group. Among the single indicators, WBC had the highest AUC of 0.683. The indicator model (WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, Troponin, NT-proBNP, D-Dimer, LVEF, and RVFAC) achieved an AUC of 0.886 in the training set and 0.876 in the validation set. The comprehensive model (age, time from onset to admission, heart failure type, WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, troponin, NT-proBNP, LA, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and RVFAC) had an AUC of 0.940 in the training set and 0.925 in the validation set. In the training set, the comprehensive model had a significantly higher AUC than the indicator model (P < .05), while no significant difference was observed between the 2 in the validation set (P > .05). Furthermore, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curve analysis indicated that the comprehensive model provided greater clinical benefits and better predictive accuracy in clinical applications. The comprehensive model demonstrates superior predictive capability for cardiac deterioration events in AHF patients, significantly outperforming both single-indicator and indicator models. This suggests that a comprehensive assessment can more accurately identify high-risk patients, offering a more reliable basis for clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":18549,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537600/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction of cardiac deterioration in acute heart failure patients: Evaluation of the efficacy of single laboratory indicator models versus comprehensive models.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaoyu Yang, Liang Wen, Min Sun, Junlu Yang, Bin Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MD.0000000000040266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aims to compare the efficacy of single-indicator models versus comprehensive models in predicting cardiac deterioration events in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), providing a more precise predictive tool for clinical practice. This retrospective cohort study included 484 patients with AHF treated at our hospital between June 2018 and January 2023. Patients were categorized into a deterioration group and a non-deterioration group based on the occurrence of cardiac deterioration events within 1 year, defined as cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or the need for mechanical circulatory support. We collected clinical data, laboratory markers, and imaging indicators for analysis. Both single-indicator models and comprehensive models (clinical data + indicators) were constructed and evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to assess their predictive performance. Among the 484 AHF patients, 121 were in the deterioration group and 363 were in the non-deterioration group. Among the single indicators, WBC had the highest AUC of 0.683. The indicator model (WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, Troponin, NT-proBNP, D-Dimer, LVEF, and RVFAC) achieved an AUC of 0.886 in the training set and 0.876 in the validation set. The comprehensive model (age, time from onset to admission, heart failure type, WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, troponin, NT-proBNP, LA, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and RVFAC) had an AUC of 0.940 in the training set and 0.925 in the validation set. In the training set, the comprehensive model had a significantly higher AUC than the indicator model (P < .05), while no significant difference was observed between the 2 in the validation set (P > .05). Furthermore, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curve analysis indicated that the comprehensive model provided greater clinical benefits and better predictive accuracy in clinical applications. The comprehensive model demonstrates superior predictive capability for cardiac deterioration events in AHF patients, significantly outperforming both single-indicator and indicator models. This suggests that a comprehensive assessment can more accurately identify high-risk patients, offering a more reliable basis for clinical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537600/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000040266\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000040266","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较单一指标模型与综合模型在预测急性心力衰竭(AHF)患者心脏恶化事件方面的疗效,为临床实践提供更精确的预测工具。这项回顾性队列研究纳入了2018年6月至2023年1月期间在我院接受治疗的484名AHF患者。根据一年内发生的心脏恶化事件(定义为心源性休克、心脏骤停或需要机械循环支持),将患者分为恶化组和非恶化组。我们收集了临床数据、实验室指标和成像指标进行分析。我们构建了单一指标模型和综合模型(临床数据+指标),并使用接收者操作特征曲线下面积(ROC)来评估其预测性能。在 484 例 AHF 患者中,121 例属于病情恶化组,363 例属于病情未恶化组。在单一指标中,白细胞的 AUC 最高,为 0.683。指标模型(WBC、NOMO、Cr、BUN、肌钙蛋白、NT-proBNP、D-二聚体、LVEF 和 RVFAC)在训练集中的 AUC 为 0.886,在验证集中的 AUC 为 0.876。综合模型(年龄、发病到入院时间、心衰类型、白细胞、NOMO、Cr、BUN、肌钙蛋白、NT-proBNP、LA、D-二聚体、纤维蛋白原和 RVFAC)的 AUC 在训练集中为 0.940,在验证集中为 0.925。在训练集中,综合模型的 AUC 明显高于指标模型(P .05)。此外,决策曲线分析(DCA)和校准曲线分析表明,综合模型在临床应用中具有更大的临床效益和更高的预测准确性。综合模型对 AHF 患者心脏恶化事件的预测能力更强,明显优于单一指标模型和指标模型。这表明综合评估能更准确地识别高危患者,为临床决策提供更可靠的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prediction of cardiac deterioration in acute heart failure patients: Evaluation of the efficacy of single laboratory indicator models versus comprehensive models.

This study aims to compare the efficacy of single-indicator models versus comprehensive models in predicting cardiac deterioration events in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), providing a more precise predictive tool for clinical practice. This retrospective cohort study included 484 patients with AHF treated at our hospital between June 2018 and January 2023. Patients were categorized into a deterioration group and a non-deterioration group based on the occurrence of cardiac deterioration events within 1 year, defined as cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or the need for mechanical circulatory support. We collected clinical data, laboratory markers, and imaging indicators for analysis. Both single-indicator models and comprehensive models (clinical data + indicators) were constructed and evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to assess their predictive performance. Among the 484 AHF patients, 121 were in the deterioration group and 363 were in the non-deterioration group. Among the single indicators, WBC had the highest AUC of 0.683. The indicator model (WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, Troponin, NT-proBNP, D-Dimer, LVEF, and RVFAC) achieved an AUC of 0.886 in the training set and 0.876 in the validation set. The comprehensive model (age, time from onset to admission, heart failure type, WBC, NOMO, Cr, BUN, troponin, NT-proBNP, LA, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and RVFAC) had an AUC of 0.940 in the training set and 0.925 in the validation set. In the training set, the comprehensive model had a significantly higher AUC than the indicator model (P < .05), while no significant difference was observed between the 2 in the validation set (P > .05). Furthermore, decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curve analysis indicated that the comprehensive model provided greater clinical benefits and better predictive accuracy in clinical applications. The comprehensive model demonstrates superior predictive capability for cardiac deterioration events in AHF patients, significantly outperforming both single-indicator and indicator models. This suggests that a comprehensive assessment can more accurately identify high-risk patients, offering a more reliable basis for clinical decision-making.

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
Medicine
Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4342
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medicine is now a fully open access journal, providing authors with a distinctive new service offering continuous publication of original research across a broad spectrum of medical scientific disciplines and sub-specialties. As an open access title, Medicine will continue to provide authors with an established, trusted platform for the publication of their work. To ensure the ongoing quality of Medicine’s content, the peer-review process will only accept content that is scientifically, technically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.
×
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