Mortality risk in dilated cardiomyopathy: the accuracy of heart failure prognostic models and dilated cardiomyopathy‐tailored prognostic model

AIMS: The aims of this paper were to investigate the analytical performance of the nine prognostic scales commonly used in heart failure (HF), in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and to develop a unique prognostic model tailored to DCM patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The hospital and outpatient records of 406 DCM patients were retrospectively analysed. The information on patient status was gathered after 48.2 ± 32.0 months. Tests were carried out to ascertain the prognostic accuracy in DCM using some of the most frequently applied HF prognostic scales (Barcelona Bio‐Heart Failure, Candesartan in Heart Failure‐Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity, Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico‐Heart Failure, Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure, Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure, MUerte Subita en Insuficiencia Cardiaca, Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure, Seattle Heart Failure Model) and one dedicated to DCM, that of Miura et al. At follow‐up, 70 DCM patients (17.2%) died. Most analysed scores substantially overestimated the mortality risk, especially in survivors. The prognostic accuracy of the scales were suboptimal, varying between 60% and 80%, with the best performance from Barcelona Bio‐Heart Failure and Seattle Heart Failure Model for 1–5 year mortality [areas under the receiver operating curve 0.792–0.890 (95% confidence interval 0.725–0.918) and 0.764–0.808 (95% confidence interval 0.682–0.934), respectively].Based on our accumulated data, a self‐developed DCM prognostic model was constructed. The model consists of age, gender, body mass index, symptoms duration, New York Heart Association class, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke, abnormal liver function, dyslipidaemia, left bundle branch block, left ventricle end‐diastolic diameter, ejection fraction, N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, haemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and pharmacological and resynchronisation therapy. This newly created prognostic model outperformed the analysed HF scales. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of various HF prognostic models found them to be suboptimal for DCM patients. A self‐developed DCM prognostic model showed improved performance over the nine other models studied. However, further validation of the prognostic model in different DCM populations is required.