Clinical Prediction Models for Valvular Heart Disease. Issue 20 (15th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Heart Association. Volume 8:Issue 20(2019)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2019-10-15
• Subjects: clinical prediction models -- risk -- valvular heart disease; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.011972
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9980

Abstract

Abstract : 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.