Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Prognostic Models for Patients Suffering a Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review
Authors' conclusion
Predictive models for predicting prognostic outcomes in patients with HFpEF showed good discriminatory ability but their utility and generalization remain uncertain due to the risk of bias, differences in predictors between models, and the lack of clinical application studies.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)16 studies · 39 models
- Outcome
- Development, performance and applicability of prognostic models
Methodological detailsCHARMS checklist, PROBAST risk of bias, Databases searched from inception to 1 June 2023
- CHARMS checklist
- PROBAST risk of bias
- Databases searched from inception to 1 June 2023
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Studies screened
- 6897
- Studies deriving and/or validating models
- 16
- Prognostic models
- 39
- Models externally validated
- Ten (25.64%)
- C-statistic in external validation set
- 0.70 to 0.96
- Studies with internal validation
- Six (37.50%)
Further pooled results
Sample sizes
- Model development
- 119 to 5988
- Internal validation
- 152 to 1000
- External validation
- 30 to 5957
Most frequent predictors
- Age, NT-proBNP, EF, albumin, HF hospital stay in last 5 months
Original publication
Prognostic Models for Patients Suffering a Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review. ESC Heart Fail. Published 6 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →