Abstract Background: The 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… Click to show full abstract
Abstract Background: The 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. Methods: Consecutive 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. Results: Between 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. Conclusions: This 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.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.