The use of the CALL Risk Score for predicting mortality in Brazilian heart failure patients

AIMS: This study aimed to develop and validate a simple method for predicting long‐term all‐cause mortality in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) residing in an area where Chagas disease is endemic, which will be important not only for patients living in Latin America but also to those living in developed non‐endemic countries. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 677 patients with a wide spectrum of aetiologies for left ventricular systolic dysfunction and receiving optimized evidence‐based treatment for CHF were prospectively followed for approximately 11 years. We established a risk score using Cox proportional hazard regression models. After multivariable analysis, four variables were independently associated with mortality and included in the CALL Risk Score: Chagas cardiomyopathy aetiology alone [hazard ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.61–4.33; P < 0.001], age ≥60 years (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06–1.74; P = 0.016), left anterior fascicular block (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.27–2.11; P < 0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.30–2.28; P < 0.001). The internal validation considered the bootstrapping, a resampling technique recommended for prediction model development. Hence, we established a scoring system attributing weights according to each risk factor: 3 points for Chagas cardiomyopathy alone, 1 point for age ≥60 years, and 2 points each for left anterior fascicular block and left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. Three risk groups were identified: low risk (score ≤2 points), intermediate risk (score of 3 to 5 points), and high risk (score ≥6 points). High‐risk patients had more than two‐fold increase in mortality (26.9 events/100 patient‐years) compared with intermediate‐risk patients (10.1 events/100 patient‐years) and almost seven‐fold increase compared with low‐risk patients (4.3 events/100 patient‐years). The CALL Risk Score data sets from the development and internal validation cohorts both displayed suitable discrimination c‐index of 0.689 (95% CI, 0.688–0.690; P < 0.001) and 0.687 (95% CI, 0.686–0.688; P < 0.001), respectively, and satisfactory calibration [Greenwood–Nam–D'Agostino test (8) = 7.867; P = 0.447] and [Greenwood–Nam–D'Agostino test (8) = 10.08; P = 0.273], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CALL Risk Score represents a simple and validated method with a limited number of non‐invasive variables that successfully predicts long‐term all‐cause mortality in a real‐world cohort of patients with CHF. Patients with CHF stratified as high risk according to the CALL Risk Score should be monitored and aggressively managed, including those with CHF secondary to Chagas disease.