Why the study?
Identifying risk factors associated with mortality provides better prognosis, and the Bayesian approach allows incorporation of prior knowledge to develop reliable risk prediction models.
Killip class, renal disease, and age are the strongest predictors of cardiovascular mortality among male STEMI patients in Malaysia based on Bayesian analysis.
May aid Bayesian risk stratification in male STEMI; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors associated with mortality is important in providing better prognosis to patients. Consistent with that, Bayesian approach offers a great advantage where it rests on the assumption that all model parameters are random quantities and hence can incorporate prior knowledge. Therefore, we aimed to develop a reliable model to identify risk factors associated with mortality among ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) male patients using Bayesian approach. METHODS: A total of 7180 STEMI male patients from the National Cardiovascular Disease Database-Acute Coronary Syndrome (NCVD-ACS) registry for the years 2006-2013 were enrolled. In the development of univariate and multivariate logistic regression model for the STEMI patients, Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation approach was applied. The performance of the model was assessed through convergence diagnostics, overall model fit, model calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: A set of six risk factors for cardiovascular death among STEMI male patients were identified from the Bayesian multivariate logistic model namely age, diabetes mellitus, family history of CVD, Killip class, chronic lung disease and renal disease respectively. Overall model fit, model calibration and discrimination were considered good for the proposed model. CONCLUSION: Bayesian risk prediction model for CVD male patients identified six risk factors associated with mortality. Among the highest risks were Killip class (OR=18.0), renal disease (2.46) and age group (OR=2.43) respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juhan et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: