Enhancing Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Through Simple Prognostication Tools: A Comparison of the Surprise Question, the Number of Previous Heart Failure Hospitalizations, and the Seattle Heart Failure Model for Predicting 1-Year Survival

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

article

Moritz Blum¹  Laura P. Gelfman²  Karen McKendrick²  Sean P. Pinney⁴  Nathan E. Goldstein² 

[1] Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin;Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai;James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center;Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine

关键词: survival prediction;    number of hospitalizations;    Seattle Heart Failure Model;    advanced heart failure;    surprise question;    palliative care;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fcvm.2022.836237

学科分类：地球科学(综合)

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

Background Score-based survival prediction in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) is complicated. Easy-to-use prognostication tools could inform clinical decision-making and palliative care delivery. Objective To compare the prognostic utility of the Seattle HF model (SHFM), the surprise question (SQ), and the number of HF hospitalizations (NoH) within the last 12 months for predicting 1-year survival in patients with advanced HF. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of advanced HF patients, predominantly with reduced ejection fraction. Primary outcome was the prognostic discrimination of SHFM, SQ (“Would you be surprised if this patient were to die within 1 year?”) answered by HF cardiologists, and NoH, assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Optimal cut-offs were calculated using Youden’s index (SHFM: <86% predicted 1-year survival; NoH ≥ 2). Results Of 535 subjects, 82 (15.3%) had died after 1-year of follow-up. SHFM, SQ, and NoH yielded a similar area under the ROC curve [SHFM: 0.65 (0.60–0.71 95% CI); SQ: 0.58 (0.54–0.63 95% CI); NoH: 0.56 (0.50–0.62 95% CI)] and similar sensitivity [SHFM: 0.76 (0.65–0.84 95% CI); SQ: 0.84 (0.74–0.91 95% CI); NoH: 0.56 (0.45–0.67 95% CI)]. As compared to SHFM, SQ had lower specificity [SQ: 0.33 (0.28–0.37 95% CI) vs. SHFM: 0.55 (0.50–0.60 95% CI)] while NoH had similar specificity [0.56 (0.51–0.61 95% CI)]. SQ combined with NoH showed significantly higher specificity [0.68 (0.64–0.73 95% CI)]. Conclusion SQ and NoH yielded comparable utility to SHFM for 1-year survival prediction among advanced HF patients, are easy-to-use and could inform bedside decision-making.

【 授权许可】

CC BY