MethodologyRisk Prediction Models for Incident Heart Failure: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Model Performance
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and economic burden worldwide.1, 2, 3 The clinical syndrome of HF represents the final stage of the continuum of cardiovascular diseases and, although pharmacological treatments could slow the progression of HF, they are not curative.4, 5
Several studies have shown that pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions in populations at risk of HF can significantly reduce the risk of new-onset HF.4, 6, 7, 8 Targeting at-risk groups with preventive therapy requires stratification of asymptomatic individuals according to their risk of developing HF.4 Prognostic models, which mathematically combine multiple predictors to estimate future risk of an outcome, have been increasingly recognized for their potential to aid health care providers to make more accurate predictions of outcome of interest.6, 8, 9
The number of risk prediction models predicting specific disease conditions has increased in recent years.10, 11 Previous studies have reported frequent use of inappropriate methods for model development and reporting among models developed to predict cardiovascular diseases, cancer, or diabetes.10, 11, 12 Inappropriate methodology can compromise the accuracy and reliability of the risk estimates, hence reducing their applicability to clinical practice.12, 13
Although an abundance of HF models has been reported, comprehensive evaluation of the methods of model development and presentation has not been described.14, 15 In light of the growing number of risk prediction models, evaluation of the methods underpinning model development, validation, and performance are important to guide decisions regarding use and choice of prognostic models for risk predictions.
In this study, we sought to review the model development and reporting methodology of multivariable risk prediction models for incident HF. We aimed to identify the most common risk predictors included in models as well as examine study characteristics associated with model performance.
Section snippets
Methods
This review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Supplementary Table S1).
Results
A total of 2327 abstracts were selected for in-depth review, of which 2284 were excluded based on titles and abstracts because of duplication or not meeting the inclusion criteria. Forty-three full-text articles were reviewed, of which 24 were excluded. This resulted in 19 studies that reported 40 different HF prediction models for the review (Fig. 1). At least 2 different models were reported in 11 of the 19 studies.
Discussion
This review demonstrated that there is an abundance of HF risk prediction models that had sufficiently high discriminative ability, although only a few have been externally validated. In this study, we found widespread use of methods that are not recommended for the conduct and reporting of risk prediction models. Despite the heterogeneity in the methodology of the studies, some predictors were consistently included in the models. Participant age (P < .001), and sample size (P = .007) in the
Conclusions
In conclusion, there is an abundance of HF risk prediction models displaying sufficient discriminative ability, although many have methodological limitations and are not externally validated. There is a substantial body of literature providing methodological guidance on how to conduct, validate, and report prediction models that should be the basis for future HF prediction research.13, 38, 47, 49 While addressing the methodological limitations, future research in the area should also focus on
Disclosure
Dr Reid is supported by a Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
References (49)
- et al.
Prevention of disease progression, left ventricular hypertrophy and congestive heart failure in hypertension treatment trials
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1996) - et al.
Risk prediction in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and analysis
JACC Heart Fail
(2014) - et al.
A clinical risk score for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and macrovascular disease: an analysis of the PROactive study
Int J Cardiol
(2013) - et al.
Assessment of conventional cardiovascular risk factors and multiple biomarkers for the prediction of incident heart failure and atrial fibrillation
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2010) - et al.
Inflammatory markers and incident heart failure risk in older adults: the Health ABC (Health, Aging, and Body Composition) study
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2010) - et al.
Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment in older adults: an adjunct to natriuretic peptide testing to identify risk of new-onset heart failure and cardiovascular death?
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2011) - et al.
Echocardiography, natriuretic peptides, and risk for incident heart failure in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging
(2012) - et al.
Missing covariate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore
J Clin Epidemiol
(2010) - et al.
A simulation study of sample size demonstrated the importance of the number of events per variable to develop prediction models in clustered data
J Clin Epidemiol
(2015) - et al.
Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement
Eur Urol
(2015)
Heart failure in elderly patients: distinctive features and unresolved issues
Eur J Heart Fail
Development of heart failure in recent hypertension trials
J Hypertens
Quantifying the heart failure epidemic: prevalence, incidence rate, lifetime risk and prognosis of heart failure The Rotterdam Study
Eur Heart J
Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide
ESC Heart Fail
Heart failure prognostic models: why bother?
Circ Heart Fail
Effects of an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients
N Engl J Med
Primary prevention of heart failure
ISRN Cardiol
Prediction models in cancer care
CA Cancer J Clin
Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review
BMJ
Developing risk prediction models for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of methodology and reporting
BMC Med
Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation
Eur Heart J
Population risk prediction models for incident heart failure: a systematic review
Circ Heart Fail
Handbook of biological statistics
Cited by (0)
Funding: This work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Program Grant (1092642) awarded to C.M.R. The funding bodies had no role in the design and conduct of the study, and interpretation of the data, or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.