Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic (MAGGIC) Heart Failure Risk Score: Validation of a Simple Tool for the Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Jonathan D Rich, Jacob Burns, Benjamin H Freed, Mathew S Maurer, Daniel Burkhoff, Sanjiv J Shah, Jonathan D Rich, Jacob Burns, Benjamin H Freed, Mathew S Maurer, Daniel Burkhoff, Sanjiv J Shah

Abstract

Background The Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure ( MAGGIC ) mortality risk score, derived from a large sample of patients with heart failure ( HF ) across the spectrum of ejection fraction ( EF ), has not yet been externally validated in a well-characterized HF with preserved EF cohort with adjudicated morbidity outcomes. Methods and Results We evaluated the MAGGIC risk score (composed of 13 clinical variables) in 407 patients with HF with preserved EF enrolled in a prospective registry and used Cox regression to evaluate its association with morbidity/mortality. We used receiver-operating characteristic analysis to compare the predictive ability of the MAGGIC risk score with the more complex Seattle Heart Failure Model, and we determined the value of adding B-type natriuretic peptide to the MAGGIC risk score for risk prediction. During a mean follow-up time of 3.6±1.8 years, 28% died, 32% were hospitalized for HF , and 55% had a cardiovascular hospitalization and/or death. The MAGGIC score, a mean± SD of 18±7, was significantly associated with mortality ( P<0.0001), HF hospitalizations ( P<0.0001), and the combined end point of cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or death (hazard ratio, 1.8 [95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.1], per 1- SD increase in the MAGGIC score; P<0.0001). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses showed that MAGGIC and Seattle Heart Failure Model performed similarly in predicting HF with preserved EF outcomes, but the MAGGIC score demonstrated better calibration for hospitalization outcomes. Further analyses showed that B-type natriuretic peptide was additive to the MAGGIC risk score for predicting outcomes ( P<0.01 by likelihood ratio test). Conclusions The MAGGIC risk score is a simple, yet powerful method of risk stratification for both morbidity and mortality in HF with preserved EF . Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01030991.

Keywords: heart failure; morbidity; mortality; risk assessment.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A, Relative contributions of individual predictor variables in the Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) to total MAGGIC integer risk score. B, Histogram of MAGGIC integer risk scores in the cohort with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A, To put all of the MAGGIC risk score component variables on a single graph, each continuous variable that was a component of the risk score (age, creatinine, systolic blood pressure, New York Heart Association [NYHA] class, and body mass index) was standardized to a mean of 0 and an SD of ±1. All other components of the score (ie, categorical variables) were added together, and this summary variable was also standardized to a mean of 0 and an SD of ±1. Next, locally weighted smoothed scatterplots of each of the MAGGIC risk score predictors were plotted against the overall risk score to show the relative contribution of high and low values of the risk score components to the overall MAGGIC risk score. B, The distribution of MAGGIC integer risk scores for all 407 patients in the cohort with HFpEF shows a nearly bell‐shaped curve with a mean score of 20±6.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan‐Meier curves of event‐free survival stratified by tertiles of the Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score. The MAGGIC risk score was significantly associated with mortality and with each of the clinical morbidity end points, including cardiovascular‐related hospitalization, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and the combined end point of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality (log‐rank P<0.001 for all survival curves). MAGGIC risk scores per tertile: tertile 1, 2 to 13; tertile 2, 14 to 20; and tertile 3, 21 to 38.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative incidence function curves of event‐free survival stratified by tertiles of the Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score. The MAGGIC risk score was significantly associated with mortality and with each of the clinical morbidity end points, including cardiovascular (CV) related hospitalization, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and the combined end point of cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality (P<0.001 for all cumulative incidence curves). MAGGIC risk scores per tertile: tertile 1, 2 to 13; tertile 2, 14 to 20; and tertile 3, 21 to 38.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Calibration plots for the Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score (predicted vs actual probabilities). CV indicates cardiovascular; HF, heart failure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Calibration plots for the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) risk score (predicted vs actual probabilities). CV indicates cardiovascular; HF, heart failure.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Event‐free survival rates of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction stratified according to median Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score and B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) value. BNP is additive to the MAGGIC risk score on the basis of stratification of patients by median MAGGIC and BNP scores. Log‐rank P<0.001 for the entire survival curve. On Cox proportional hazards analysis, each of the 4 strata is statistically significantly different from the others (P<0.05), except for the comparison of the middle 2 groups (P=0.076). CV indicates cardiovascular.

References

    1. Shah SJ, Heitner JF, Sweitzer NK, Anand IS, Kim HY, Harty B, Boineau R, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Lewis EF, Markov V, O'Meara E, Kabulia B, Shaburishvili T, Solomon SD, Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Li R. Baseline characteristics of patients in the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:184–192.
    1. Oktay AA, Rich JD, Shah SJ. The emerging epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2013;10:401–410.
    1. Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, Peterson ED, Bhatt DL, Cannon CP, Hernandez AF, Fonarow GC; Get With the Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators . Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence, therapies, and outcomes. Circulation. 2012;126:65–75.
    1. Shah SJ, Katz DH, Deo RC. Phenotypic spectrum of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Heart Fail Clin. 2014;10:407–418.
    1. Shah SJ, Katz DH, Selvaraj S, Burke MA, Yancy CW, Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO, Huang CC, Deo RC. Phenomapping for novel classification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation. 2015;131:269–279.
    1. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, Sutradhar SC, Anker SD, Cropp AB, Anand I, Maggioni A, Burton P, Sullivan MD, Pitt B, Poole‐Wilson PA, Mann DL, Packer M. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006;113:1424–1433.
    1. Aaronson KD, Schwartz JS, Chen TM, Wong KL, Goin JE, Mancini DM. Development and prospective validation of a clinical index to predict survival in ambulatory patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation. Circulation. 1997;95:2660–2667.
    1. Komajda M, Carson PE, Hetzel S, McKelvie R, McMurray J, Ptaszynska A, Zile MR, Demets D, Massie BM. Factors associated with outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: findings from the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I‐PRESERVE). Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:27–35.
    1. Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, McMurray JJ, Maggioni A, Kober L, Squire IB, Swedberg K, Dobson J, Poppe KK, Whalley GA, Doughty RN. Predicting survival in heart failure: a risk score based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1404–1413.
    1. Allen LA, Matlock DD, Shetterly SM, Xu S, Levy WC, Portalupi LB, McIlvennan CK, Gurwitz JH, Johnson ES, Smith DH, Magid DJ. Use of risk models to predict death in the next year among individual ambulatory patients with heart failure. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:435–441.
    1. Sartipy U, Dahlstrom U, Edner M, Lund LH. Predicting survival in heart failure: validation of the MAGGIC heart failure risk score in 51,043 patients from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:173–179.
    1. Katz DH, Burns JA, Aguilar FG, Beussink L, Shah SJ. Albuminuria is independently associated with cardiac remodeling, abnormal right and left ventricular function, and worse outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:586–596.
    1. Burke MA, Katz DH, Beussink L, Selvaraj S, Gupta DK, Fox J, Chakrabarti S, Sauer AJ, Rich JD, Freed BH, Shah SJ. Prognostic importance of pathophysiologic markers in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:288–299.
    1. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise JS, Solomon SD, Spencer KT, Sutton MS, Stewart WJ. Recommendations for chamber quantification. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440–1463.
    1. Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, Marino PN, Oh JK, Smiseth OA, Waggoner AD, Flachskampf FA, Pellikka PA, Evangelista A. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:107–133.
    1. Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher MD, Chandrasekaran K, Solomon SD, Louie EK, Schiller NB. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23:685–713; quiz 786‐788.
    1. Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Burnett JC Jr, Mahoney DW, Bailey KR, Rodeheffer RJ. Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the community: appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic. JAMA. 2003;289:194–202.
    1. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133:601–609.
    1. Ketchum ES, Levy WC. Multivariate risk scores and patient outcomes in advanced heart failure. Congest Heart Fail. 2011;17:205–212.
    1. Alba AC, Agoritsas T, Jankowski M, Courvoisier D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH, Ross HJ. Risk prediction models for mortality in ambulatory patients with heart failure: a systematic review. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:881–889.
    1. Lam CS, Donal E, Kraigher‐Krainer E, Vasan RS. Epidemiology and clinical course of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:18–28.
    1. Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure . The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta‐analysis. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1750–1757.
    1. Chan MM, Lam CS. How do patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction die? Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:604–613.
    1. Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Harty B, Heitner JF, Kenwood CT, Lewis EF, O'Meara E, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, Yang S, McKinlay SM; TOPCAT Investigators . Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1383–1392.
    1. Anjan VY, Loftus TM, Burke MA, Akhter N, Fonarow GC, Gheorghiade M, Shah SJ. Prevalence, clinical phenotype, and outcomes associated with normal B‐type natriuretic peptide levels in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:870–876.
    1. Shah SJ. Innovative clinical trial designs for precision medicine in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2017;10:322–336.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe