Key result
Expanded bedside risk score yields a modest 0.59 AUC for one-year mortality after acute HF.
Why the study?
Simple bedside scores may support risk stratification after acute heart failure hospitalization, especially when biomarker testing or complete registry-derived variables are unavailable.
Cohort (n=497)
No
Effect estimate: AUC 0.590 (95% CI 0.509-0.660)
In a Vietnamese cohort of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, simple non-biomarker bedside point scores provided only modest prognostic discrimination for 1-year mortality, indicating they are best suited for broad initial risk orientation rather than precise individual prognostication.
Bedside scores may aid post-discharge mortality stratification in acute HF; leaves open prospective validation before adoption.
Background: Simple bedside scores may support risk stratification after acute heart failure hospitalization, particularly during post-discharge follow-up when biomarker testing or complete registry-derived variables may be unavailable. We evaluated non-biomarker bedside risk scores for 1-year all-cause mortality after acute heart failure hospitalization in Vietnam. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 497 adults hospitalized for acute heart failure at Cho Ray Hospital, Vietnam, between January and August 2021, with post-discharge outpatient follow-up and 1-year vital status ascertainment. This was a pragmatic evaluation of simplified bedside/domain scores constructed from routine clinical variables, not a formal external validation of the original GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) or OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure) equations. The primary score was an a priori-expanded eight-item, non-biomarker score including age, New York Heart Association class, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, serum sodium, serum creatinine, left ventricular ejection fraction, and hemoglobin. Natriuretic peptides and the AHEAD (atrial fibrillation, anemia, age, renal dysfunction and diabetes mellitus) score were not included. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, threshold characteristics and observed mortality across score groups. Results: Among 497 patients, 57 died within 1 year (11.5%). Point-score areas under the curve ranged from 0.525 to 0.590. The expanded eight-item score had an area under the curve of 0.590 (95% confidence interval, 0.509–0.660). At 4 or more points, sensitivity was 0.491, specificity was 0.655, positive likelihood ratio was 1.42, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.78. Observed mortality increased from 7.1% (95% confidence interval, 4.3–11.6) in the low-score group to 12.4% (7.7–19.4) in the intermediate-score group, and 15.6% (11.0–21.6) in the high-score group. A cross-validated clinical model using the same non-biomarker information achieved an area under the curve of 0.671. Conclusions: In this Vietnamese cohort after acute heart failure hospitalization, characterized by predominantly reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, simple non-biomarker point scores provided modest prognostic information for 1-year mortality. Their role is broad orientation rather than definitive individual prognostication, and external validation is needed before implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute heart failure (n=497). Expanded eight-item non-biomarker bedside score was evaluated on 1-year all-cause mortality discrimination (AUC 0.590, 95% CI 0.509-0.660). An expanded eight-item non-biomarker bedside risk score provided modest discrimination for 1-year all-cause mortality after acute heart failure hospitalization, with an AUC of 0.590.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: