Key result
Forty-eight ready-to-use risk scores for predicting outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy were identified, though their routine clinical use is currently limited by significant heterogeneity and a lack of cross-validation.
Why the study?
Tools are needed for optimal patient selection and prognostic assessment in CRT, but no literature review was available to list possible risk scores for clinicians.
What risk scores are available for predicting prognosis in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Systematic Review
What risk scores are available for predicting prognosis in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
This review identifies 48 risk scores for CRT prognosis, highlighting the need for cross-validation before routine clinical implementation.
Significant heterogeneity and absent cross-validation limit CRT risk score adoption; leaves open standardized validation studies in heart failure.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for selected heart failure (HF) patients improves symptoms and reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the prognosis of HF is still poor. There is an emerging need for tools that might help in optimal patient selection and provide prognostic information for patients and their families. Several risk scores have been created in recent years; although, no literature review is available that would list the possible scores for the clinicians. We identified forty-eight risk scores in CRT and provided the calculation methods and formulas in a ready-to-use format. The reviewed score systems can predict the prognosis of CRT patients; some of them have even provided an online calculation tool. Significant heterogeneity is present between the various risk scores in terms of the variables incorporated and some variables are not yet used in daily clinical practice. The lack of cross-validation of the risk scores limits their routine use and objective selection. As the number of prognostic markers of CRT is overwhelming, further studies might be required to analyze and cross-validate the data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boros et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. Risk scores for cardiac resynchronization therapy was evaluated. Forty-eight ready-to-use risk scores for predicting outcomes in cardiac resynchronization therapy were identified, though their routine clinical use is currently limited by significant heterogeneity and a lack of cross-validation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: