English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  In clinical practice, a risk prediction model is an effective solitary program to predict prognosis in particular patient groups. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)and N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are widely recognized outcome-predicting factors for patients with heart failure (HF).This study derived external validation of a risk score to predict 1-year mortality after discharge in hospitalized patients with HF using the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC)program data. We also assessed the effect of adding BNP or NT-proBNP to this risk score model in a Korean HF registry population.    Method and results  We included 5625 patients from the Korean acute heart failure registry (KorAHF) and excluded those who died in hospital. The MAGGIC constructed a risk score to predict mortality in patients with HF by using 13 routinely available patient characteristics (age, gender, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), HF diagnosed within the last 18 months, current smoker, NYHA class, use of beta blocker, ACEI or ARB, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, creatinine, and EF). We added BNP or NT-proBNP, which are the most important biomarkers, to the MAGGIC risk scoring system in patients with HF. The outcome measure was 1-year mortality. In multivariable analysis, BNP or NT-proBNP independently predicted death. The risk score was significantly varied between alive and dead groups (30.61 ± 6.32 vs. 24.80 ± 6.81, p < 0.001). After the conjoint use of BNP or NT-proBNP and MAGGIC risk score in patients with HF, a significant difference in risk score was noted (31.23 ± 6.46 vs. 25.25 ± 6.96, p < 0.001).The discrimination abilities of the risk score model with and without biomarker showed minimal improvement (C index of 0.734 for MAGGIC risk score and 0.736 for MAGGIC risk score plus BNP or NT-proBNP, p = 0.0502) and the calibration was found good. However, we achieved a significant improvement in net reclassification and integrated discrimination for mortality (NRI of 33.4%,p < 0.0001 and IDI of 0.002, p < 0.0001).    Conclusion  In the KorAHF, the MAGGIC project HF risk score performed well in a large nationwide contemporary external validation cohort. Furthermore, the addition of BNP or NT-proBNPto the MAGGIC risk score was beneficial in predicting more death in hospitalized patients with HF.

plos one

Validation of the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) heart failure risk score and the effect of adding natriuretic peptide for predicting mortality after discharge in hospitalized patients with heart failure