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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |