Key result
Neither the Gold Standards Framework nor the Seattle Heart Failure Model accurately predicted 12-month mortality, with sensitivities of 83% and 12% and specificities of 22% and 99%, respectively.
Why the study?
Do the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guide and the Seattle Heart Failure Model accurately predict 12-month mortality in community-based ambulatory patients with NYHA class III and IV chronic heart failure?
Cohort (n=138)
Do the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guide and the Seattle Heart Failure Model accurately predict 12-month mortality in community-based ambulatory patients with NYHA class III and IV chronic heart failure?
Effect estimate: C index 0.68 (95% CI 0.58-0.77)
Neither the GSF nor the SHF accurately predicted which advanced heart failure patients were in their last year of life, highlighting a barrier to timely palliative care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neither model should guide palliative care timing in advanced HF; leaves open the need for accurate community-based prognostic tools.
Haga et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Chronic heart failure (n=138). Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guide (GSF) and Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHF) was evaluated on 12 month mortality, and sensitivity and specificity of GSF and SHF (C index 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.77). Neither the Gold Standards Framework nor the Seattle Heart Failure Model accurately predicted 12-month mortality, with sensitivities of 83% and 12% and specificities of 22% and 99%, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: