Key result
MitraScore linked to ~22% higher mortality risk in elderly HF patients, outperforming other simple scores.
Why the study?
MitraScore was developed as a prognostic model for patients undergoing TEER, and because its components are considered prognostic in HF, researchers investigated its usefulness in HF patients.
Does the MitraScore accurately predict mortality and heart failure outcomes in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure compared to other simple risk scores?
Cohort (n=1,100)
Yes
Does the MitraScore accurately predict mortality and heart failure outcomes in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure compared to other simple risk scores?
Effect estimate: adjusted HR 1.22 (95% CI 1.10-1.36)
p-value: p=<0.001
The MitraScore, originally developed for TEER patients, demonstrates strong prognostic utility and superior discriminative power compared to other simple risk scores in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure.
May aid mortality risk stratification in elderly HF inpatients; extends TEER-derived score but remains hypothesis-generating.
AIMS: MitraScore is a novel, simple, and manually calculatable risk score developed as a prognostic model for patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for mitral regurgitation. As its components are considered prognostic in heart failure (HF), we aimed to investigate the usefulness of the MitraScore in HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated MitraScore for 1100 elderly patients (>65 years old) hospitalized for HF in the prospective multicentre FRAGILE-HF study and compared its prognostic ability with other simple risk scores. The primary endpoint was all-cause deaths, and the secondary endpoints were the composite of all-cause deaths and HF rehospitalization and cardiovascular deaths. Overall, the mean age of 1100 patients was 80 ± 8 years, and 58% were men. The mean MitraScore was 3.2 ± 1.4, with a median of 3 (interquartile range: 2-4). A total of 326 (29.6%), 571 (51.9%), and 203 (18.5%) patients were classified into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups based on the MitraScore, respectively. During a follow-up of 2 years, 226 all-cause deaths, 478 composite endpoints, and 183 cardiovascular deaths were observed. MitraScore successfully stratified patients for all endpoints in the Kaplan-Meier analysis (P < 0.001 for all). In multivariate analyses, MitraScore was significantly associated with all endpoints after covariate adjustments [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval): 1.22 (1.10-1.36), P < 0.001 for all-cause deaths; adjusted HR 1.17 (1.09-1.26), P < 0.001 for combined endpoints; and adjusted HR 1.24 (1.10-1.39), P < 0.001 for cardiovascular deaths]. The Hosmer-Lemeshow plot showed good calibration for all endpoints. The net reclassification improvement (NRI) analyses revealed that the MitraScore performed significantly better than other manually calculatable risk scores of HF: the GWTG-HF risk score, the BIOSTAT compact model, the AHEAD score, the AHEAD-U score, and the HANBAH score for all-cause and cardiovascular deaths, with respective continuous NRIs of 0.20, 0.22, 0.39, 0.39, and 0.29 for all-cause mortality (all P-values < 0.01) and 0.20, 0.22, 0.42, 0.40, and 0.29 for cardiovascular mortality (all P-values < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MitraScore developed for patients undergoing TEER also showed strong discriminative power in HF patients. MitraScore was superior to other manually calculable simple risk scores and might be a good choice for risk assessment in clinical practice for patients receiving TEER and those with HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaneko et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=1,100). MitraScore vs. Other simple risk scores (GWTG-HF, BIOSTAT compact, AHEAD, AHEAD-U, HANBAH) was evaluated on All-cause deaths (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36, p=<0.001). MitraScore was significantly associated with all-cause mortality in elderly heart failure patients (adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.10-1.36; P<0.001) and outperformed other simple risk scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: