• Duo Xu, Yanjing Dong, Bo Zhang, Li Li, and Chenyang Jiang.
• Department of Cardiology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 3100016, China.
• Chin. Med. J. 2022 Dec 5; 135 (23): 282928352829-2835.

BackgroundThe Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score was developed in 2013 to predict survival in heart failure (HF) patients. However, it has yet to be validated in a Chinese population. Our study aimed to investigate the ability of the score to predict 1-year mortality in a Chinese population.MethodsConsecutive patients with HF were retrospectively selected from the inpatient electronic medical records of the cardiology department in a regional hospital in China. A total integer score was calculated for each enrolled patient based on the value of each risk factor in the MAGGIC scoring system. Each enrolled patient was followed for at least 1 year. The observational endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality. The predictive ability of the MAGGIC score was assessed by comparing observed and predicted mortality within 1 year.ResultsBetween January 2018 and December 2020, a total of 635 patients were included in the study: 57 (9.0%) of whom died within 1 year after discharge. The average age of all patients was 74.6 ± 11.2 years, 264 of them (41.6%) were male, and the average left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.7% ± 13.2%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.840 (95% confidence interval: 0.779, 0.901), which indicated a fair discriminatory ability of the score. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test result ( χ2  = 12.902, degree of freedom = 8, P   =  0.115) indicated that the MAGGIC score had good calibration. The decision curve analysis showed that the MAGGIC score yielded a good clinical net benefit and net reduction in interventions.ConclusionsThis validation of the MAGGIC score showed that it has a good ability to predict 1-year mortality in Chinese patients with HF after discharge. Due to regional and inter-hospital differences, external validation studies need to be further confirmed in other centers.Copyright © 2023 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

21 keywords...

hide…