Back

DCM-PROGRESS: predicting end-stage heart failure in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients

Schmidt, A. F.; Soukup, L.; Leinveber, P.; Lekadir, K.; Panovsky, R.; Machac, P.; Asselbergs, F. W. F.; Boonstra, M.; van de Leur, R.; ter Riele, A.; Sammani, A.

2023-09-11 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.09.10.23295251 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimsPatients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) are at considerable risk for end-stage heart failure (HF), requiring close monitoring to identify early signs of disease. We aimed to develop a model to predict the 5-years risk of end-stage HF, allowing for tailored patient monitoring and management. Methods and resultsDerivation data were available from a Dutch cohort of 293 DCM patients, with external validation available from a Czech Republic cohort of 235 DCM patients. Candidate predictors spanned patient and family histories, ECG and echocardiogram measurements, and biochemistry. End-stage HF was defined as a composite of death, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. Lasso and sigmoid kernel support vector machine (SVM) algorithms were trained using cross-validation. During follow-up 65 (22%) of Dutch DCM patients developed end-stage HF, with 27 (11%) cases in the Czech cohort. Out of the two considered models, the lasso model (retaining NYHA class, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, height, R-axis, and TAPSE as predictors) reached the highest discriminative performance (testing c-statistic of 0.85, 95%CI 0.58; 0.94), which was confirmed in the external validation cohort (c-statistic of 0.75, 95%CI 0.61; 0.82), compared to a c-statistic of 0.69 for the MAGGIC score. Both the MAGGIC score and the DCM-PROGRESS model slightly over-estimated the true risk, but were otherwise appropriately calibrated. ConclusionWe developed a highly discriminative risk-prediction model for end-stage HF in DCM patients. The model was validated in two countries, suggesting the model can meaningfully improve clinical decision-making.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.