Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep;113(9):1343-1354.
doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02433-2. Epub 2024 Apr 2.

Performance of risk models to predict mortality risk for patients with heart failure: evaluation in an integrated health system

Affiliations

Performance of risk models to predict mortality risk for patients with heart failure: evaluation in an integrated health system

Faraz S Ahmad et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Referral of patients with heart failure (HF) who are at high mortality risk for specialist evaluation is recommended. Yet, most tools for identifying such patients are difficult to implement in electronic health record (EHR) systems.

Objective: To assess the performance and ease of implementation of Machine learning Assessment of RisK and EaRly mortality in Heart Failure (MARKER-HF), a machine-learning model that uses structured data that is readily available in the EHR, and compare it with two commonly used risk scores: the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic (MAGGIC) Heart Failure Risk Score.

Design: Retrospective, cohort study.

Participants: Data from 6764 adults with HF were abstracted from EHRs at a large integrated health system from 1/1/10 to 12/31/19.

Main measures: One-year survival from time of first cardiology or primary care visit was estimated using MARKER-HF, SHFM, and MAGGIC. Discrimination was measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed graphically.

Key results: Compared to MARKER-HF, both SHFM and MAGGIC required a considerably larger amount of data engineering and imputation to generate risk score estimates. MARKER-HF, SHFM, and MAGGIC exhibited similar discriminations with AUCs of 0.70 (0.69-0.73), 0.71 (0.69-0.72), and 0.71 (95% CI 0.70-0.73), respectively. All three scores showed good calibration across the full risk spectrum.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that MARKER-HF, which uses readily available clinical and lab measurements in the EHR and required less imputation and data engineering than SHFM and MAGGIC, is an easier tool to identify high-risk patients in ambulatory clinics who could benefit from referral to a HF specialist.

Keywords: Heart failure; Machine learning; Outcomes; Risk prediction model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest Dr. Ahmad has received consulting fees from Teladoc Livongo and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Petito received research support from Omron Healthcare Co. Ltd. outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI et al. (2023) Heart disease and stroke statistics-2023 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 147:e93–e621 - PubMed
    1. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D et al. (2022) 2022 AHA/ ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 145:e895–e1032 - PubMed
    1. Morris AA, Khazanie P, Drazner MH, et al. (2021) Guidance for timely and appropriate referral of patients with advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 0:CIR0000000000001016 - PubMed
    1. Kao DP, Trinkley KE, Lin C-T (2020) Heart failure management innovation enabled by electronic health records. JACC Heart Fail 8:223–233 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Spratt SE, Pereira K, Granger BB et al. (2017) Assessing electronic health record phenotypes against gold-standard diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Inform Assoc 24:e121–e128 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources