Why the study?
The authors aimed to identify potential clinical predictors of fulminant myocarditis and establish a nomogram model for clinical practicability.
A novel nomogram incorporating six clinical and echocardiographic factors demonstrated high accuracy in predicting the risk of fulminant myocarditis, potentially aiding in early identification and intervention.
Lower mean arterial pressure may signal higher fulminant myocarditis risk; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
We aimed to identify potential clinical predictors associated with the risk of fulminant myocarditis, and further to establish and assess a nomogram model based on significant attributes for clinical practicability.This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study, involving 28 patients with fulminant myocarditis and 35 age-, and sex-matched patients with non-fulminant myocarditis. Effect-size estimates are expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Fifteen factors were primarily identified to be associated with the significant risk of fulminant myocarditis after adjusting for confounders. Due to strong correlation, 6 factors were retained, including mean arterial pressure (OR, 95% CI, P: .82, .72-.94, .005), creatinine (2.15, 1.13-4.10, 0.020), blood urea nitrogen (1.45, 1.04-2.02, 0.028), aspartate aminotransferase (2.62, 1.16-5.91, 0.021), troponin I (1.43, 1.07-1.90, 0.015), and ventricular wall motion abnormality (25.81, 2.52-264.69, 0.006). The contribution of the 6 significant factors to predicting fulminant myocarditis risk was significant from multi-angle analyses, and regressing these factors in a nomogram model exhibited good predictive accuracy, as reflected by both C-index (>90%, P < .001).We have identified 6 clinical factors in significant association with fulminant myocarditis, and their prediction capability was more obvious in a nomogram model. Further investigations with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up intervals are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: