The Usefulness of the MEESSI Score for Risk Stratification of Patients With Acute Heart Failure at the Emergency Department

Evaluation of the HEFESTOS scale to predict outcomes in emergency department acute heart failure patients

The HEFESTOS scale was developed in 14 Spanish primary care centres and validated in 9 primary care centres of other European countries. It showed good performance to predict death/hospitalisation during the first 30 days after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF), with c-statistics of 0.807/0.730 in the derivation/validation cohorts. We evaluated this scale in the emergency department (ED) setting, comparing it to the EHMRG and MEESSI scales in the ED and the EFFECT and GWTG scales in hospitalised patients, to predict 30-day outcomes, including death and hospitalisation. Consecutive AHF patients were enrolled in 34 Spanish EDs in January-February 2016, 2018, and 2019 with variables needed to calculate outcome scores. Thirty-day hospitalisation/death (together and separately) and post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit or hospitalisation for AHF or all-cause death) were determined for patients discharged home after ED care. Predictive capacity was assessed by c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals. Of 10,869 patients, 4,044 were included (median age: 83 years, 54% women). The performance of HEFESTOS was modest for 30-day hospitalisation/death, c-statistic=0.656 (0.637-0.675), hospitalisation, 0.650 (0.631-0.669), and death, 0.610 (0.576-0.644). Of 1,034 patients with scores for the 5 scales, HEFESTOS had the numerically highest c-statistic for hospitalisation/death at 30 days, 0.666 (0.627-0.704), vs. MEESSI= 0.650 (0.612-0.687, p=0.51), EFFECT=0.633 (0.595-0.672, p=0.21), GWTG=0.618 (0.578-0.657, p=0.06) and EHMRG=0.617 (0.577-0.704, p=0.07). Similar modest performances were observed for predicting hospitalisation [ranging from HEFESTOS=0.656 (0.618-0.695) to GWTG=0.603 (0.564-0.643)]. Conversely, prediction of 30-day death was good with the MEESSI=0.787 (0.728-845), EFFECT=0.754 (0.691-0.818) and GWTG=0.749 (0.689-0.809) scales, and modest with EHMRG=0.649 (0.581-0.717) and HEFESTOS=0.610 (0.538-0.683). Although the HEFESTOS scale was numerically better for predicting 30-day hospitalisation/death in ED AHF patients, its modest performance precludes routine use. Only 30-day mortality was adequately predicted by some scales, with the MEESSI achieving the best results.

Role of prehospital point-of-care N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in acute life-threatening cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCTION

The evidence about the use of natriuretic peptides (NP) to predict mortality in the pre-hospital setting is limited. The main objective of this study is to assess the ability of point-of-care testing (POCT) N-terminal portion of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to predict 2-day in-hospital mortality of acute cardiovascular diseases (ACVD).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentric, prospective, observational study in adults with ACVD transferred by ambulance to emergency departments (ED). The primary outcome was 2-day in-hospital mortality. The discrimination capacity of the NT-proBNP was performed through a prediction model trained using a derivation cohort and evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic on a validation cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1006 patients were recruited. The median age was 75 (IQR 63-84) years and 421 (41.85%) were females. The 2-day in-hospital mortality was 5.8% (58 cases). The predictive validity of NT-proBNP, for 2-day mortality reached the following AUC: 0.823 (95%CI: 0.758-0.889, p < 0.001), and the optimal specificity and sensitivity were 73.1 and 82.7. Predictive power of NT-proBNP obtained an AUC 0.549 (95%CI: 0.432-0.865, p 0.215) for acute heart failure, AUC 0.893 (95%CI: 0.617-0.97, p < 0.001) for ischemic heart disease, AUC 0.714 (95%CI: 0.55-0.87, p = 0.0069) for arrhythmia and AUC 0.927 (95%CI: 0.877-0.978, p < 0,001) for syncope.

CONCLUSION

POCT NT-proBNP has proven to be a strong predictor of early mortality in ACVD, showing an excellent predictive capacity in cases of syncope. However, this biomarker does not appear to be useful for predicting outcome in patients with acute heart failure.

Assessment of acute heart failure prognosis: the promising role of prognostic models and biomarkers

Numerous models and biomarkers have been proposed to estimate prognosis and improve decision-making in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The present literature review provides a critical appraisal of externally validated prognostic models in AHF, combining clinical data and biomarkers. We perform a literature review of clinical studies, using the following terms: "acute heart failure," "acute decompensated heart failure," "prognostic models," "risk scores," "mortality," "death," "hospitalization," "admission," and "biomarkers." We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 to 2020 for studies documenting prognostic models in AHF. External validation of each prognostic model to another AHF cohort, containing at least one biomarker, was prerequisites for study selection. Among 358 initially screened studies, 9 of them fulfilled all searching criteria. The majority of prognostic models were simplified, including a narrow number of variables (up to 10), with good performance regarding calibration and discrimination (c-statistics > 0.65). Unfortunately, the derived and validated cohorts showed a wide variety in patients' characteristics (e.g., cause of AHF and therapy). Moreover, the prognostic models used various time-points and a plethora of combinations of variables determining different cut-off values. Although the application of valid prognostic models in AHF population is quite promising, a precise methodological approach should be set for the derivation and validation of prognostic models in AHF with unified characteristics to establish an effective performance in clinical practice.

Risk stratification scores for patients with acute heart failure in the Emergency Department: A systematic review

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.

The FAST-FURO study: effect of very early administration of intravenous furosemide in the prehospital setting to patients with acute heart failure attending the emergency department

AIMS

The effect of early administration of intravenous (IV) furosemide in the emergency department (ED) on short-term outcomes of acute heart failure (AHF) patients remains controversial, with one recent Japanese study reporting a decrease of in-hospital mortality and one Korean study reporting a lack of clinical benefit. Both studies excluded patients receiving prehospital IV furosemide and only included patients requiring hospitalization. To assess the impact on short-term outcomes of early IV furosemide administration by emergency medical services (EMS) before patient arrival to the ED.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments (EAHFE) registry of consecutive AHF patients admitted to Spanish EDs, patients treated with IV furosemide at the ED were classified according to whether they received IV furosemide from the EMS (FAST-FURO group) or not (CONTROL group). In-hospital all-cause mortality, 30-day all-cause mortality, and prolonged hospitalization (>10 days) were assessed. We included 12 595 patients (FAST-FURO = 683; CONTROL = 11 912): 968 died during index hospitalization [7.7%; FAST-FURO = 10.3% vs. CONTROL = 7.5%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.403, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.085-1.813; P = 0.009], 1269 died during the first 30 days (10.2%; FAST-FURO = 13.4% vs. CONTROL = 9.9%; OR = 1.403, 95% CI = 1.146-1.764; P = 0.004), and 2844 had prolonged hospitalization (22.8%; FAST-FURO = 25.8% vs. CONTROL = 22.6%; OR = 1.189, 95% CI = 0.995-1.419; P = 0.056). FAST-FURO group patients had more diabetes mellitus, ischaemic cardiomyopathy, peripheral artery disease, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and severe decompensations, and had a better New York Heart Association class and had less atrial fibrillation. After adjusting for these significant differences, early IV furosemide resulted in no impact on short-term outcomes: OR = 1.080 (95% CI = 0.817-1.427) for in-hospital mortality, OR = 1.086 (95% CI = 0.845-1.396) for 30-day mortality, and OR = 1.095 (95% CI = 0.915-1.312) for prolonged hospitalization. Several sensitivity analyses, including analysis of 599 pairs of patients matched by propensity score, showed consistent findings.

CONCLUSION

Early IV furosemide during the prehospital phase was administered to the sickest patients, was not associated with changes in short-term mortality or length of hospitalization after adjustment for several confounders.