Cargando…

Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease

BACKGROUND: While many clinical prediction models (CPMs) exist to guide valvular heart disease treatment decisions, the relative performance of these CPMs is largely unknown. We systematically describe the CPMs available for patients with valvular heart disease with specific attention to performance...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wessler, Benjamin S., Lundquist, Christine M., Koethe, Benjamin, Park, Jinny G., Brown, Kristen, Williamson, Tatum, Ajlan, Muhammad, Natto, Zuhair, Lutz, Jennifer S., Paulus, Jessica K., Kent, David M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818049/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31583938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011972
_version_ 1783463553082064896
author Wessler, Benjamin S.
Lundquist, Christine M.
Koethe, Benjamin
Park, Jinny G.
Brown, Kristen
Williamson, Tatum
Ajlan, Muhammad
Natto, Zuhair
Lutz, Jennifer S.
Paulus, Jessica K.
Kent, David M.
author_facet Wessler, Benjamin S.
Lundquist, Christine M.
Koethe, Benjamin
Park, Jinny G.
Brown, Kristen
Williamson, Tatum
Ajlan, Muhammad
Natto, Zuhair
Lutz, Jennifer S.
Paulus, Jessica K.
Kent, David M.
author_sort Wessler, Benjamin S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While many clinical prediction models (CPMs) exist to guide valvular heart disease treatment decisions, the relative performance of these CPMs is largely unknown. We systematically describe the CPMs available for patients with valvular heart disease with specific attention to performance in external validations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review identified 49 CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease treated with surgery (n=34), percutaneous interventions (n=12), or no intervention (n=3). There were 204 external validations of these CPMs. Only 35 (71%) CPMs have been externally validated. Sixty‐five percent (n=133) of the external validations were performed on distantly related populations. There was substantial heterogeneity in model performance and a median percentage change in discrimination of −27.1% (interquartile range, −49.4%–−5.7%). Nearly two‐thirds of validations (n=129) demonstrate at least a 10% relative decline in discrimination. Discriminatory performance of EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) models (accounting for 73% of external validations) varied widely: EuroSCORE II validation c‐statistic range 0.50 to 0.95; Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) Models validation c‐statistic range 0.50 to 0.86. These models performed well when tested on related populations (median related validation c‐statistics: EuroSCORE II, 0.82 [0.76, 0.85]; Society of Thoracic Surgeons [2009], 0.72 [0.67, 0.79]). There remain few (n=9) external validations of transcatheter aortic valve replacement CPMs. CONCLUSIONS: Many CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease have never been externally validated and isolated external validations appear insufficient to assess the trustworthiness of predictions. For surgical valve interventions, there are existing predictive models that perform reasonably well on related populations. For transcatheter aortic valve replacement (CPMs additional external validations are needed to broadly understand the trustworthiness of predictions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6818049
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68180492019-11-04 Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease Wessler, Benjamin S. Lundquist, Christine M. Koethe, Benjamin Park, Jinny G. Brown, Kristen Williamson, Tatum Ajlan, Muhammad Natto, Zuhair Lutz, Jennifer S. Paulus, Jessica K. Kent, David M. J Am Heart Assoc Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis BACKGROUND: While many clinical prediction models (CPMs) exist to guide valvular heart disease treatment decisions, the relative performance of these CPMs is largely unknown. We systematically describe the CPMs available for patients with valvular heart disease with specific attention to performance in external validations. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review identified 49 CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease treated with surgery (n=34), percutaneous interventions (n=12), or no intervention (n=3). There were 204 external validations of these CPMs. Only 35 (71%) CPMs have been externally validated. Sixty‐five percent (n=133) of the external validations were performed on distantly related populations. There was substantial heterogeneity in model performance and a median percentage change in discrimination of −27.1% (interquartile range, −49.4%–−5.7%). Nearly two‐thirds of validations (n=129) demonstrate at least a 10% relative decline in discrimination. Discriminatory performance of EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) models (accounting for 73% of external validations) varied widely: EuroSCORE II validation c‐statistic range 0.50 to 0.95; Society of Thoracic Surgeons (2009) Models validation c‐statistic range 0.50 to 0.86. These models performed well when tested on related populations (median related validation c‐statistics: EuroSCORE II, 0.82 [0.76, 0.85]; Society of Thoracic Surgeons [2009], 0.72 [0.67, 0.79]). There remain few (n=9) external validations of transcatheter aortic valve replacement CPMs. CONCLUSIONS: Many CPMs for patients with valvular heart disease have never been externally validated and isolated external validations appear insufficient to assess the trustworthiness of predictions. For surgical valve interventions, there are existing predictive models that perform reasonably well on related populations. For transcatheter aortic valve replacement (CPMs additional external validations are needed to broadly understand the trustworthiness of predictions. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6818049/ /pubmed/31583938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011972 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Wessler, Benjamin S.
Lundquist, Christine M.
Koethe, Benjamin
Park, Jinny G.
Brown, Kristen
Williamson, Tatum
Ajlan, Muhammad
Natto, Zuhair
Lutz, Jennifer S.
Paulus, Jessica K.
Kent, David M.
Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title_full Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title_fullStr Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title_short Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease
title_sort clinical prediction models for valvular heart disease
topic Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818049/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31583938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011972
work_keys_str_mv AT wesslerbenjamins clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT lundquistchristinem clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT koethebenjamin clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT parkjinnyg clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT brownkristen clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT williamsontatum clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT ajlanmuhammad clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT nattozuhair clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT lutzjennifers clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT paulusjessicak clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease
AT kentdavidm clinicalpredictionmodelsforvalvularheartdisease