Comparison of Two Risk Calculators Based on Clinical Variables (MAGGIC and BCN Bio-HF) in Prediction of All-Cause Mortality After Acute Heart Failure Episode
Resumen: Background: Heart failure (HF) is common and deadly, affecting over 60 million people worldwide, and it remains a leading cause of hospitalization and post-discharge death. One-year mortality after an acute decompensated HF (ADHF) admission often approaches 40%. Prognostic models are critical for stratifying mortality risk in heart failure (HF) patients. This study compared the performance of the MAGGIC and BCN Bio-HF models in predicting 1-year and 3-year all-cause mortality (ACM) in patients discharged after acute decompensated HF (ADHF). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 229 patients hospitalized for ADHF at the Clinical University Hospital of Zaragoza. The required variables were extracted from medical records, and ACM risks were calculated using web-based tools. Calibration, discrimination (AUC), and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and calibration curves assessed risk stratification and alignment with observed outcomes. Reclassification metrics (Net Reclassification Index [NRI], Integrated Discrimination Improvement [IDI]) were used to compare the models’ predictive performances. Results: Both of the models demonstrated robust discrimination for 1-year ACM (AUC: MAGGIC = 0.738, BCN Bio-HF = 0.769) but showed lower performance for 3-year predictions. Calibration was poor, with both models exhibiting significant risk underestimation at the individual level. MAGGIC achieved higher sensitivity (1-year: 0.911; 3-year: 0.685), favoring high-risk patient identification, whereas BCN Bio-HF offered superior specificity (1-year: 0.679; 3-year: 0.746) and a positive prediction value, reducing false positives. BCN Bio-HF showed a significant 12.7% reclassification improvement for 1-year mortality prediction. Conclusions: BCN Bio-HF did not outperform MAGGIC in our cohort. MAGGIC is preferable for the initial high-risk patient identification, requiring more intense short-term follow-up, while BCN Bio-HF’s higher specificity is best-suited to avoid overtreatment. Altogether, the clinical utility of both models was limited in our cohort by severe miscalibration, which may render adequate risk stratification difficult.
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.3390/hearts6040026
Año: 2025
Publicado en: Hearts (Basel) 6, 4 (2025), 26 [17 pp.]
ISSN: 2673-3846

Financiación: info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/DGA/B07-23R
Tipo y forma: Artículo (Versión definitiva)
Área (Departamento): Area Medicina (Dpto. Medicina, Psiqu. y Derm.)

Creative Commons Debe reconocer adecuadamente la autoría, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo de cualquier manera razonable, pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del licenciador o lo recibe por el uso que hace.


Exportado de SIDERAL (2026-03-18-13:52:17)


Visitas y descargas

Este artículo se encuentra en las siguientes colecciones:
Artículos > Artículos por área > Medicina



 Registro creado el 2026-03-18, última modificación el 2026-03-18


Versión publicada:
 PDF
Valore este documento:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Sin ninguna reseña)