Risk Prediction in Transition: MAGGIC Score Performance at Discharge and Incremental Utility of Natriuretic Peptides.

BACKGROUND:Risk stratification for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) remains a critical need. The Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score is a robust model derived from patients with ambulatory HF. Its validity at the time of discharge and the incremental value of natriuretic peptides (NPs) in this setting is unclear. METHODS:This was a single-center study examining a total of 4138 patients with HF from 2 groups; hospital discharge patients from administrative data (n = 2503, 60.5%) and a prospective registry of patients with ambulatory HF (n = 1635, 39.5%). The ambulatory registry patients underwent N-terminal pro-B-type NP (BNP) measurement at enrollment, and in the hospitalize discharge cohort clinical BNP levels were abstracted. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 1 year. MAGGIC score performance was compared between cohorts utilizing Cox regression and calibration plots. The incremental value of NPs was assessed using calculated area under the curve and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS:The hospitalized and ambulatory cohorts differed with respect to primary outcome (777 and 100 deaths, respectively), sex (52.1% vs 41.7% female) and race (35% vs 49.5% African American). The MAGGIC score showed poor discrimination of mortality risk in the hospital discharge (C statistic: 0.668, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.1 per point, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.652, 0.684) but fair discrimination in the ambulatory cohorts (C statistic: 0.784, HR: 1.16 per point, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.83), respectively, a difference that was statistically significant (P = .001 for C statistic, 0.002 for HR). Calibration assessment indicated that the slope and intercept (of MAGGIC-predicted to observed mortality) did not statistically differ from ideal in either cohort and did not differ between the cohorts (all P > .1). NP levels did not significantly improve prediction in the hospitalized cohort (P = .127) but did in the ambulatory cohort (C statistic: 0.784 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.83] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.85]; P = .018) with a favorable NRI of 0.354 (95% CI: 0.202-0.469; P = .002). CONCLUSION:The MAGGIC score showed poor discrimination when used in patients with HF at hospital discharge, which was inferior to its performance in patients with ambulatory HF. Discrimination within the hospital discharge group was not improved by including hospital NP levels.