| Literature DB >> 35595787 |
Yuan Huang1,2,3, Hai-Yan Wang1,2,3, Wen Jian1,2,3, Zhi-Jie Yang1,2,3, Chun Gui4,5,6.
Abstract
Predicting the chances mortality within 1 year in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients can be very useful in clinical decision-making. This study has developed and validated a risk-prediction model for identifying factors contributing to mortality within 1 year in such patients. The predictive nomogram was constructed using a retrospective cohort study, with 615 of patients hospitalized in the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University between October 2012 and May 2020. A variety of factors, including presence of comorbidities, demographics, results of laboratory tests, echocardiography data, medication strategies, and instances of heart transplant or death were collected from electronic medical records and follow-up telephonic consultations. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and logistic regression analyses were used to identify the critical clinical factors for constructing the nomogram. Calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness of the predictive model were assessed using the calibration plot, C-index and decision curve analysis. Internal validation was assessed with bootstrapping validation. Among the patients from whom follow-up data were obtained, the incidence of an end event (deaths or heart transplantation within 1 year) was 171 cases per 1000 person-years (105 out of 615). The main predictors included in the nomogram were pulse pressure, red blood cell count, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, levels of N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide, medical history, in-hospital worsening heart failure, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. The model showed excellent discrimination with a C-index of 0.839 (95% CI 0.799-0.879), and the calibration curve demonstrated good agreement. The C-index of internal validation was 0.826, which demonstrated that the model was quite efficacious. A decision curve analysis confirmed that our nomogram was clinically useful. In this study, we have developed a nomogram that can predict the risk of death within 1 year in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. This will be useful in the early identification of patients in the terminal stages for better individualized clinical decisions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35595787 PMCID: PMC9123170 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12249-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Comparison of calculated mortality risk for non‐survivors and survivors of non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients.
| Non‐survivors (n = 221) | Survivors (n = 394) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow‐up time (month) | 18.7 ± 19.7 | 42.1 ± 22.5 | < 0.001 |
| Outcome of study population, n (%) | 105(17.1%) | 510(82.9%) | |
| Mortality risk by MAGGIC (%) | 16.7 ± 9.5 | 11.5 ± 6.5 | < 0.001 |
| Outcome of study population, n (%) | 183(44.7%) | 226(55.3%) | |
| Mortality risk by MAGGIC (%) | 35.1 ± 15.5 | 25.1 ± 11.5 | < 0.001 |
MAGGIC meta‐analysis global group in chronic heart failure, MUSIC MUerte Subita en Insuficiencia Cardiaca. Follow‐up time was presented as mean ± SD. The mortality in study population was presented as n (%). Predicted mortality was calculated based on the website (www.heartfailurerisk.org).
Figure 1Selection of risk factors contributing to mortality within 1 year in NIDCM patients using the LASSO regression model. (a) Optimal parameter (lambda) selection in the LASSO model used five-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The partial likelihood deviance (binomial deviance) curve was plotted against log(lambda). Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values by using the minimum criteria and a SE of 1 for the minimum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). (b) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 42 features. A coefficient profile plot was generated against the log(lambda) sequence.
Results of Logistic regression.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |||||
| Body mass index | − 0.733 | 0.480 (0.296–0.779) | 0.003 | − 0.532 | 0.588 (0.331–1.043) | 0.069 |
| Systolic pressure | − 0.745 | 0.475 (0.310–0.726) | 0.001 | − 0.143 | 0.867 (0.472–1.593) | 0.646 |
| Pulse pressure | − 0.716 | 0.489 (0.319–0.748) | 0.001 | − 0.629 | 0.533 (0.289–0.982) | 0.044 |
| Red blood cell count | − 0.811 | 0.444 (0.290–0.680) | < 0.001 | − 0.696 | 0.499 (0.296–0.841) | 0.009 |
| NLR | 1.196 | 3.306 (2.135–5.119) | < 0.001 | 0.117 | 1.124 (0.626–2.019) | 0.695 |
| Total cholesterol | − 0.706 | 0.494 (0.321–0.759) | 0.001 | − 0.218 | 0.804 (0.470–1.375) | 0.426 |
| Serum chlorine | − 1.612 | 0.199 (0.118–0.337) | < 0.001 | − 0.547 | 0.579 (0.280–1.197) | 0.140 |
| International normalized ratio | 0.942 | 2.566 (1.527–4.312) | < 0.001 | 0.122 | 1.130 (0.572–2.231) | 0.725 |
| Aspartate aminotransferase | 0.933 | 2.541 (1.656–3.899) | < 0.001 | 0.48 | 1.616 (0.944–2.767) | 0.080 |
| NT-proBNP | 1.761 | 5.816 (3.601–9.394) | < 0.001 | 1.066 | 2.904 (1.633–5.166) | < 0.001 |
| LVDd | 0.893 | 2.442 (1.577–3.781) | < 0.001 | 0.849 | 2.337 (1.349–4.049) | 0.002 |
| Medical history(< 1 year) | < 0.001 | 0.090 | ||||
| Medical history(1–5 years) | 0.768 | 2.154 (1.303–3.562) | 0.003 | 0.411 | 1.508 (0.802–2.836) | 0.202 |
| Medical history(≥ 5 years) | 1.087 | 2.966 (1.719–5.119) | < 0.001 | 0.755 | 2.127 (1.082–4.183) | 0.029 |
| Respiratory inflammation | 0.928 | 2.530 (1.650–3.880) | < 0.001 | 0.394 | 1.483 (0.860–2.557) | 0.157 |
| In-hospital worsening heart failure | 2.696 | 14.815 (6.831–32.13) | < 0.001 | 1.797 | 6.031 (2.284–15.93) | < 0.001 |
| Dopamine Injection | 1.493 | 4.452 (2.860–6.933) | < 0.001 | 0.169 | 1.185 (0.649–2.161) | 0.581 |
| ACEIs or ARBs | − 1.357 | 0.258 (0.160–0.414) | < 0.001 | − 0.897 | 0.408 (0.228–0.731) | 0.003 |
. NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, NT-proBNP N terminal pro B type natriuretic peptide, LVDd left ventricular end diastolic dimension, ACEIs angiotension converting enzyme inhibitors, ARBs angiotensin receptor blockers, CI confidence interval. ® is the regression coefficient.
Figure 2Nomogram for assessing the risk of death within 1 year in NIDCM patients. (a) Complete nomogram. (b) How to use the nomogram.
Figure 3Nomogram validation. (a) ROC curve for the nomogram. (b) Calibration curve for the nomogram. The x-axis represents the predicted 1-year mortality risk. The y-axis represents the actual confirmed 1-year mortality. The diagonal dotted line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model. The solid line represents the performance of the nomogram, of which a closer fit to the diagonal dotted line represents a better prediction. (c) Decision curve analysis for the nomogram. The y-axis measures the standardized net benefit. The blue line represents the nomogram and its 95%CI. The thin solid line represents the assumption that all patients die within 1 year. The thick solid line represents the assumption that no patients die within 1 year. (d) Clinical impact curve for the nomogram. The solid red line represents the predicted number of people and 95% CI judged as high risk by the model at different risk thresholds. The dotted blue line represents the actual number of high-risk people and 95% CI at different risk thresholds.
Figure 4Comparison of different variable screening methods. (a) The abscissa represents the number of variables included, and the ordinate represents the value of adjusted R-square; when the number of variables is 8, the maximum adjusted R-square is 0.268. (b) Comparison of ROC curves between model 1 and model 2. (c) Comparison of calibration curves between model 1 and model 2. (d) Comparison of decision curves between model 1 and model 2.
Figure 5Comparison with the original model(model 1) after adding variables(model 2). (a) Added "MRA" to the model. (b) Added "Implantable cardiac devices" to the model. (c) Added "Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation" to the model. (d–h) Added "MRA + Implantable cardiac devices + Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation" to the model.
Figure 6Comparison of models with different regression methods. (a,a1) ROC curve and AUC at different times. (b,b1) Calibration curves for 1- and 3-year mortality. (c,c1) Decision curves for 1- and 3-year mortality.
Figure 7Comparison between our nomogram(model 2) and the MAGGIC score scale(model 1). (a) Comparison of ROC curves between model 1 and model 2. (b) Comparison of calibration curves between model 1 and model 2. (c) Comparison of decision curves between model 1 and model 2. (d) Comparison of C-index between model 1 and model 2.
Figure 8Flow chart showing the process of patient recruitment for the study population.