Dataset Information

Performance of risk prediction scores for cardiovascular mortality in older persons: External validation of the SCORE OP and appraisal.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:European guidelines recommend the use of the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) to assess 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events in people aged 40 to 65. The SCORE Older Persons (SCORE OP, 5-year and 10-year versions) was recently developed for people aged 65 or older. We assessed the performance of these risk scores in predicting fatal cardiovascular events in older persons in Berlin. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Data from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), a prospective, population-based study of older persons recruited from a German public health insurance company database were used. 1,657 participants aged 70 or older without reported previous myocardial infarction were included. We assessed calibration by comparing predicted risks to observed (for 5-year versions, 5y) or projected (for 10-year versions) probabilities. During follow-up (median: 4.8 years), 118 cardiovascular deaths occurred. The calibration assessment of the SCORE OP-H 5y and SCORE OP-L 5y equations revealed 2.1- and 1.5-fold overestimation. Comparing 10-year versions, the SCORE OP showed better discrimination ability compared to the SCORE (C-indices of around 0.80 compared to 0.72) and the SCORE for high-risk regions showed the best calibration (chi-square = 29.68). The SCORE OP overestimated the true risk; 519 and 677 events were predicted using the low-risk and high-risk region SCORE OP equations compared to 397 to 399 events projected based on BIS follow-up data (predicted/actual ratios of 1.3 and 1.7). CONCLUSIONS:Given the low transportability of the SCORE OP observed in our population, we caution against its use in routine clinical practice until further information is available to avoid possible overtreatment among older persons in Berlin.

SUBMITTER: Piccininni M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7144969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPredictive algorithms to inform risk management decisions are needed for patients with COVID-19, although the traditional risk scores have not been adequately assessed in Asian patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a COVID-19-specific prediction model, the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) Mortality Score, along with other conventional critical care risk models in Japanese nationwide registry data.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and participantsHospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease or coronary risk factors from January to May 2020 in 49 hospitals in Japan.Main outcome measuresTwo different types of outcomes, in-hospital mortality and a composite outcome, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality.ResultsThe risk scores for 693 patients were tested by predicting in-hospital mortality for all patients and composite endpoint among those not intubated at baseline (n=659). The number of events was 108 (15.6%) for mortality and 178 (27.0%) for composite endpoints. After missing values were multiply imputed, the performance of the 4C Mortality Score was assessed and compared with three prediction models that have shown good discriminatory ability (RISE UP score, A-DROP score and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS)). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the 4C Mortality Score was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.88) for in-hospital mortality and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81) for the composite endpoint. It showed greater discriminatory ability compared with other scores, except for the RISE UP score, for predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86). Similarly, the 4C Mortality Score showed a positive net reclassification improvement index over the A-DROP and REMS for mortality and over all three scores for the composite endpoint. The 4C Mortality Score model showed good calibration, regardless of outcome.ConclusionsThe 4C Mortality Score performed well in an independent external COVID-19 cohort and may enable appropriate disposition of patients and allocation of medical resources.Trial registration number UMIN000040598.

Project description:BackgroundThe Sepsis-3 criteria introduced the system that uses the Sequential Organ-Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to define sepsis. The cardiovascular SOFA (CV SOFA) scoring system needs modification due to the change in guideline-recommended vasopressors. In this study, we aimed to develop and to validate the modified CV SOFA score.MethodsWe developed, internally validated, and externally validated the modified CV SOFA score using the suspected infection cohort, sepsis cohort, and septic shock cohort. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The modified CV SOFA score system was constructed with consideration of the recently recommended use of the vasopressor norepinephrine with or without lactate level. The predictive validity of the modified SOFA score was evaluated by the discrimination for the primary outcome. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using the calibration curve. We compared the prognostic performance of the original CV/total SOFA score and the modified CV/total SOFA score to detect mortality in patients with suspected infection, sepsis, or septic shock.ResultsWe identified 7,393 patients in the suspected cohort, 4038 patients in the sepsis cohort, and 3,107 patients in the septic shock cohort in seven Korean emergency departments (EDs). The 28-day mortality rates were 7.9%, 21.4%, and 20.5%, respectively, in the suspected infection, sepsis, and septic shock cohorts. The model performance is higher when vasopressor and lactate were used in combination than the vasopressor only used model. The modified CV/total SOFA score was well-developed and internally and externally validated in terms of discrimination and calibration. Predictive validity of the modified CV SOFA was significantly higher than that of the original CV SOFA in the development set (0.682 vs 0.624, p < 0.001), test set (0.716 vs 0.638), and all other cohorts (0.648 vs 0.557, 0.674 vs 0.589). Calibration was modest. In the suspected infection cohort, the modified model classified more patients to sepsis (66.0 vs 62.5%) and identified more patients at risk of septic mortality than the SOFA score (92.6 vs 89.5%).ConclusionsAmong ED patients with suspected infection, sepsis, and septic shock, the newly-developed modified CV/total SOFA score had higher predictive validity and identified more patients at risk of septic mortality.

Project description:Two clinical scoring systems, the status epilepticus severity score (STESS) and the epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus (EMSE), are used to predict mortality in patients with status epilepticus (SE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome-prediction function of the two scoring systems regarding in-hospital mortality using a multicenter large cohort of adult patients with SE. Moreover, we studied the potential role of these two scoring systems in predicting the functional outcome in patients with SE.The SE cohort consisted of patients from the epilepsy centers of eight academic tertiary medical centers in South Korea. The clinical and electroencephalography data for all adult patients with SE from January 2013 to December 2014 were derived from a prospective SE database. The primary outcome variable was defined as in-hospital death. The secondary outcome variable was defined as a poor functional outcome, i.e., a score of 1-3 on the Glasgow Outcome Scale, at discharge.Among the 120 non-hypoxic patients with SE recruited into the study, 16 (13.3%) died in the hospital and 64 (53.3%) were discharged with a poor functional outcome. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for prediction of in-hospital death based on the STESS had an area under the curve of 0.673 with an optimal cutoff value for discrimination (best match for both sensitivity (0.56) and specificity (0.70)) that was ? 4 points. The two combinations of elements of the EMSE system (EMSE-ALDEg and EMSE-ECLEg) predicted not only in-hospital mortality with the best match for sensitivity (more than 0.6) and specificity (more than 0.6), but also a poor functional outcome with the best match for both sensitivity (>0.7) and specificity (>0.6). STESS did not predict a poor functional outcome (area under the ROC, 0.581; P = 0.23).Although the EMSE is a clinical scoring system that focuses on individual mortality, we did not find differences between the EMSE and STESS in the prediction of in-hospital death. The EMSE was useful in predicting poor functional outcome, as it was significantly better than STESS.

Project description:IntroductionPeople 65 years and older represent the fastest growing segment of the surgical population. Older age is associated with doubling of risk when undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures and often coexists with medical complexity and considerations of end-of-life care, creating prognostic and decisional uncertainty. Combined with the time-sensitive nature of EGS, it is challenging to gauge perioperative risk and ensure that clinical decisions are aligned with the patient values. Current preoperative risk prediction models for older EGS patients have major limitations regarding derivation and validation, and do not address the specific risk profile of older patients. Accurate and externally validated models specific to older patients are needed to inform care and decision making.Methods and analysisWe will derive, internally and externally validate a multivariable model to predict 30-day mortality in EGS patients >65 years old. Our derivation sample will be individuals enrolled in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database between 2012 and 2016 having 1 of 7 core EGS procedures. Postulated predictor variables have been identified based on previous research, clinical and epidemiological knowledge. Our model will be derived using logistic regression penalised with elastic net regularisation and ensembled using bootstrap aggregation. The resulting model will be internally validated using k-fold cross-validation and bootstrap validation techniques and externally validated using population-based health administrative data. Discrimination and calibration will be reported at each step.Ethics and disseminationEthics for NSQIP data use was obtained from the Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board; external validation will use routinely collected anonymised data legally exempt from research ethics review. The final risk score will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We plan to further disseminate the model as an online calculator or application for clinical use. Future research will be required to test the clinical application of the final model.

Dataset Information

Performance of risk prediction scores for cardiovascular mortality in older persons: External validation of the SCORE OP and appraisal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets