Head-to-head comparison of contemporary heart failure risk scores.

AIMS: Several heart failure (HF) web-based risk scores are currently used in clinical practice. Currently, we lack head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of risk scores. This study aimed to assess correlation and mortality prediction performance of Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC-HF) risk score, which includes clinical variables + medications; Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), which includes clinical variables + treatments + analytes; PARADIGM Risk of Events and Death in the Contemporary Treatment of Heart Failure (PREDICT-HF) and Barcelona Bio-Heart Failure (BCN-Bio-HF) risk calculator, which also include biomarkers, like N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1166 consecutive patients with HF from different aetiologies that had NT-proBNP measurement at first visit were included. Discrimination for all-cause mortality was compared by Harrell's C-statistic from 1 to 5 years, when possible. Calibration was assessed by calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test and global performance by Nagelkerke's R2 . Correlation between scores was assessed by Spearman rank test. Correlation between the scores was relatively poor (rho value from 0.66 to 0.79). Discrimination analyses showed better results for 1-year mortality than for longer follow-up (SHFM 0.817, MAGGIC-HF 0.801, PREDICT-HF 0.799, BCN-Bio-HF 0.830). MAGGIC-HF showed the best calibration, BCN-Bio-HF overestimated risk while SHFM and PREDICT-HF underestimated it. BCN-Bio-HF provided the best discrimination and overall performance at every time-point. CONCLUSIONS: None of the contemporary risk scores examined showed a clear superiority over the rest. BCN-Bio-HF calculator provided the best discrimination and overall performance with overestimation of risk. MAGGIC-HF showed the best calibration, and SHFM and PREDICT-HF tended to underestimate risk. Regular updating and recalibration of online web calculators seems necessary to improve their accuracy as HF management evolves at unprecedented pace.

Recovered heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and outcomes: a prospective study.

AIMS: Significant recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurs in a proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We analysed outcomes, including mortality [all-cause, cardiovascular (CV), HF-related, and sudden death], and HF-related hospitalizations in this HF-recovered group. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: LVEF was assessed at baseline and at 1 year in 1057 consecutive HF patients. Patients were classified into three groups: (i) HF-recovered: LVEF <45% at baseline and ≥45% at 1 year (n = 233); (ii) HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): LVEF ≥45% throughout follow-up (n = 117); and (iii) HFrEF: LVEF <45% throughout follow-up (n = 707). Mean follow-up was 5.6 ± 3.1 years. HF-recovered patients differed from HFrEF and HFpEF groups in demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean LVEF increase was 21.1 ± 10 points in HF-recovered patients. Using the HF-recovered group as a reference, the risks for the primary composite endpoint (n = 376), with non-CV death as competing risk, for HFpEF and HFrEF groups were: hazard ratio (HR) 2.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.39], P < 0.001 and HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.50-2.65), P < 0.001, respectively. All-cause (n = 429), CV (n = 245), HF-related (n = 127), and sudden death (n = 60) were significantly lower in HF-recovered subjects relative to HFrEF (all P < 0.01). HF-recovered patients also experienced less recurrent HF hospitalizations (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: One in four treated patients with HFrEF showed recovery of systolic function. HF-recovered patients had significantly improved mortality and morbidity relative to HFpEF and HFrEF subjects. Further research is needed to identify optimal medications and device indications for HF-recovered patients.

Anemia control in renal transplant recipients receiving continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) treatment: the AnemiaTrans Study.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) effectively enables anemia control in patients with chronic kidney disease, but little information is available in renal transplant recipients. The authors aimed to evaluate the effect of C.E.R.A. under clinical practice conditions on anemia control in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study carried out in adult renal transplant patients in the immediate posttransplant period and at late posttransplant period receiving C.E.R.A. in clinical practice. Patients' data were retrieved from their medical charts at baseline and months 1, 3, and 6. RESULTS: A total of 318 evaluable patients were enrolled into the study: 32 in the immediate posttransplant period and 286 at late posttransplant period (erythropoiesis-stimulating agent [ESA]-naïve, n = 44; converting from other ESAs, n = 242). Patients in the immediate posttransplant period experienced a significant increase in hemoglobin (Hb) levels from baseline to month 1 (9.9±1.5 g/dL vs. 11.5±1.4 g/dL; P< 0.001). ESA-naïve patients showed increasing mean Hb levels from baseline to month 6 (10.1±0.7 g/dL vs. 11.7±1.0 g/dL; P < 0.001) and 94.7% achieved Hb ≥11 g/dL during the study. In patients converted from other ESAs, the percentage of patients with Hb between 11-13 g/dL was maintained from baseline to month 6 with no significant differences (61.0% vs. 62.4%). Mean monthly doses of C.E.R.A. at baseline were 134.4±56.4 µg, 81.3±28.1 µg, and 93.0±44.2 µg in immediate posttransplant, ESA-naïve, and converted patients, respectively. C.E.R.A. was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: C.E.R.A. enables anemia control in renal transplant recipients, allowing target Hb levels to be achieved and maintained with doses even below those described in the Summary of Product Characteristics.