ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
Evaluation of the HEFESTOS scale to predict outcomes in emergency department acute heart failure patients.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 18 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The HEFESTOS scale was developed in 14 Spanish primary care centres and validated in 9 primary care centres of other European countries. It showed good performance to predict death/hospitalisation during the first 30 days after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF), with c-statistics of 0.807/0.730 in the derivation/validation cohorts. We evaluated this scale in the emergency department (ED) setting, comparing it to the EHMRG and MEESSI scales in the ED and the EFFECT and GWTG scales in hospitalised patients, to predict 30-day outcomes, including death and hospitalisation. Consecutive AHF patients were enrolled in 34 Spanish EDs in January-February 2016, 2018, and 2019 with variables needed to calculate outcome scores. Thirty-day hospitalisation/death (together and separately) and post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit or hospitalisation for AHF or all-cause death) were determined for patients discharged home after ED care. Predictive capacity was assessed by c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals. Of 10,869 patients, 4,044 were included (median age: 83 years, 54% women). The performance of HEFESTOS was modest for 30-day hospitalisation/death, c-statistic=0.656 (0.637-0.675), hospitalisation, 0.650 (0.631-0.669), and death, 0.610 (0.576-0.644). Of 1,034 patients with scores for the 5 scales, HEFESTOS had the numerically highest c-statistic for hospitalisation/death at 30 days, 0.666 (0.627-0.704), vs. MEESSI= 0.650 (0.612-0.687, p=0.51), EFFECT=0.633 (0.595-0.672, p=0.21), GWTG=0.618 (0.578-0.657, p=0.06) and EHMRG=0.617 (0.577-0.704, p=0.07). Similar modest performances were observed for predicting hospitalisation [ranging from HEFESTOS=0.656 (0.618-0.695) to GWTG=0.603 (0.564-0.643)]. Conversely, prediction of 30-day death was good with the MEESSI=0.787 (0.728-845), EFFECT=0.754 (0.691-0.818) and GWTG=0.749 (0.689-0.809) scales, and modest with EHMRG=0.649 (0.581-0.717) and HEFESTOS=0.610 (0.538-0.683). Although the HEFESTOS scale was numerically better for predicting 30-day hospitalisation/death in ED AHF patients, its modest performance precludes routine use. Only 30-day mortality was adequately predicted by some scales, with the MEESSI achieving the best results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.