“…Among the 761 screened citations, 28 studies published over the last 10 years 8,20,24,35–59 met the inclusion criteria after full-text review (Figure 1). These 28 studies included 19 different risk models that had been used in AHF patients in the ED setting to predict clinical outcomes (Table 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20,35,39,54–59,62 In addition, nine studies used at least one risk score to define the severity of AHF decompensation, to produce subgroups of patients based on their risk or to adjust in multivariate regressions (to reduce the impact of confounding factors). 8,24,36,45–50 In one of them, the comparison between discharged and hospitalised patients at similar predicted risk (using the risk model developed by Lee et al.) 24 demonstrated a higher 90-day mortality for patients discharged home from the ED.…”
Aims This study aimed to systematically identify and summarise all risk scores evaluated in the emergency department setting to stratify acute heart failure patients. Methods and results A systematic review of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted including all multicentre studies reporting the use of risk predictive models in emergency department acute heart failure patients. Exclusion criteria were: (a) non-original articles; (b) prognostic models without predictive purposes; and (c) risk models without consecutive patient inclusion or exclusively tested in patients admitted to a hospital ward. We identified 28 studies reporting findings on 19 scores: 13 were originally derived in the emergency department (eight exclusively using acute heart failure patients), and six in emergency department and hospitalised patients. The outcome most frequently predicted was 30-day mortality. The performance of the scores tended to be higher for outcomes occurring closer to the index acute heart failure event. The eight scores developed using acute heart failure patients only in the emergency department contained between 4–13 predictors (age, oxygen saturation and creatinine/urea included in six scores). Five scores (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade, Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade 30 Day mortality ST depression, Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency department 3 Day, Acute Heart Failure Risk Score, and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) have been externally validated in the same country, and two (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) further internationally validated. The c-statistic for Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade to predict seven-day mortality was between 0.74–0.81 and for Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure to predict 30-day mortality was 0.80–0.84. Conclusions There are several scales for risk stratification of emergency department acute heart failure patients. Two of them are accurate, have been adequately validated and may be useful in clinical decision-making in the emergency department i.e. about whether to admit or discharge.
“…Among the 761 screened citations, 28 studies published over the last 10 years 8,20,24,35–59 met the inclusion criteria after full-text review (Figure 1). These 28 studies included 19 different risk models that had been used in AHF patients in the ED setting to predict clinical outcomes (Table 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20,35,39,54–59,62 In addition, nine studies used at least one risk score to define the severity of AHF decompensation, to produce subgroups of patients based on their risk or to adjust in multivariate regressions (to reduce the impact of confounding factors). 8,24,36,45–50 In one of them, the comparison between discharged and hospitalised patients at similar predicted risk (using the risk model developed by Lee et al.) 24 demonstrated a higher 90-day mortality for patients discharged home from the ED.…”
Aims This study aimed to systematically identify and summarise all risk scores evaluated in the emergency department setting to stratify acute heart failure patients. Methods and results A systematic review of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted including all multicentre studies reporting the use of risk predictive models in emergency department acute heart failure patients. Exclusion criteria were: (a) non-original articles; (b) prognostic models without predictive purposes; and (c) risk models without consecutive patient inclusion or exclusively tested in patients admitted to a hospital ward. We identified 28 studies reporting findings on 19 scores: 13 were originally derived in the emergency department (eight exclusively using acute heart failure patients), and six in emergency department and hospitalised patients. The outcome most frequently predicted was 30-day mortality. The performance of the scores tended to be higher for outcomes occurring closer to the index acute heart failure event. The eight scores developed using acute heart failure patients only in the emergency department contained between 4–13 predictors (age, oxygen saturation and creatinine/urea included in six scores). Five scores (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade, Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade 30 Day mortality ST depression, Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency department 3 Day, Acute Heart Failure Risk Score, and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) have been externally validated in the same country, and two (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) further internationally validated. The c-statistic for Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade to predict seven-day mortality was between 0.74–0.81 and for Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure to predict 30-day mortality was 0.80–0.84. Conclusions There are several scales for risk stratification of emergency department acute heart failure patients. Two of them are accurate, have been adequately validated and may be useful in clinical decision-making in the emergency department i.e. about whether to admit or discharge.
“…Finalmente, la estancia hospitalaria ha sido significativamente más corta en los pacientes con IC-FEp, siendo este un aspecto menos investigado, pero de forma general no se ha descrito que existan diferencias significativas en la estancia media según la FEVI 30 .…”
“…In a Swedish registry, 30 the death rates for HF with preserved ejection fraction, HF with midrange ejection fraction, and HF with reduced ejection fraction 30 days after an AHF admission were 2.9%, 2.1%, and 2.8%, respectively, and 1‐year mortality rates were 17.4%, 14.2%, and 15.4%, respectively. In a Spanish registry 31 during the 90‐day postdischarge period, 11% of patients died and 32.2% were readmitted; the combined end point of readmission or death occurred in 37.4% of patients. Similar numbers have been reported across Asia.…”
Acute heart failure is a common and increasingly prevalent condition, affecting >10 million people annually. For those patients who survive to discharge, early readmissions and death rates are >30% everywhere on the planet, making it a malignant condition. Beyond these adverse outcomes, it represents one of the largest drivers of health care costs globally. Studies in the past 2 years have demonstrated that we can induce remissions in this malignant process if therapy is instituted rapidly, at the first acute heart failure episode, using full doses of all available effective medications. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this goal can be achieved safely and effectively. Now the urgent call is for all stakeholders, patients, physicians, payers, politicians, and the public at large to come together to address the gaps in implementation and enable health care providers to induce durable remissions in patients with acute heart failure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.