ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, frequent and disabling condition but with a modifiable course and a large potential for improving. The aim of this study was to validate the two available clinical prediction rules for mortality at one year in patients with primo-hospitalization for decompensated HF: PREDICE and AHEAD. The secondary aim was to evaluate in our setting the changes in the clinical pattern of HF in the last decade in patients hospitalized for a first episode of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter cohort study, which included 180 patients hospitalized with "de novo" HF was conducted to validate the PREDICE score. Calibration and discrimination measurements were calculated for the PREDICE model and the PREDICE score (using the validation cohort of the PREDICE) and the AHEAD score (using both the development and the validation cohort of the PREDICE). RESULTS: For the PREDICE models, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.79) and the calibration slope 0.65 (95% CI: 0.21-1.20). For the PREDICE score AUC was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.47-0.71) and slope 0.42 (95% CI: -0.20-1.17). For the AHEAD score the AUC was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73) and slope 1.38 (95% CI: 0.62-0.73) when used the development cohort of PREDICE and the AUC was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.49-0.67), and slope 0.68 (95% CI: -0.06 to 1.47) when used its validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that the two risk scores available for patients with primo-hospitalization for decompensated HF (PREDICE and AHEAD) are not currently valid for predicting mortality at one-year. In our setting the clinical spectrum of hospitalized patients with new-onset HF has been modified over time. The study underscores the need to validate the prognostic models before clinical implementation.
ABSTRACT
Not only are there large number of guides, protocols and other support tools available for the clinical decision-making process in the Spanish National Health System, but there is also a major degree of variability among them, reflecting inconsistencies and low quality of those documents. This study is aimed at conducting all inventory of the Clinical Practice Guideline assessment scales and clinical analysis tools and to propose a scale or set of criteria for assessing the quality of the Clinical Practice Guidelines put out in Spain. A systematic search of critical evaluation scales was conducted. The inclusion criteria and the concordance analysis of the items by three evaluators were independently applied. The discordances were resolved by explicit consensus. Ten suggested critical assessment scales and sets of criteria from eleven institutions were identified, eight of which consist of scales and tools proposed for assessing the quality of the Clinical Practice Guidelines, the other two being proposals for assessing the implementation and inclusion of the Clinical Practice Guidelines in a register. In the comparative analysis, the criteria most often repeated on the scales analysed were related to the areas included in the AGREE Instrument. The areas considered in most of the critical assessment scales were the same as those of the AGREE Instrument. Although this tool does not take in criteria for guide implementation assessment purposes, it is considered suitable for use in the assessment prior to inclusion to the national CPG register.
