Validation of the Intermountain Risk Score and Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Score in predicting mortality

Erik K Engelsgjerd; Catherine P Benziger; Benjamin D Horne

doi:10.1136/openhrt-2021-001722

Validation of the Intermountain Risk Score and Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Score in predicting mortality

Open Heart. 2021 Aug;8(2):e001722. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001722.

Authors

Erik K Engelsgjerd¹, Catherine P Benziger², Benjamin D Horne^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medicine, Des Moines University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.
² Heart and Vascular Center, Essentia Health, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
³ Intermountain Heart Institute, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA benjamin.horne@imail.org.
⁴ Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Abstract

Objective: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS) was evaluated for validation as a mortality predictor and compared with the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) risk score in a rural heart failure (HF) population.

Background: IMRS predicts mortality in general populations using common, inexpensive laboratory tests, patient age and sex, but requires validation in patients with HF.

Methods: Individuals were selected from the GWTG-HF registry at Essentia Health. This included consecutive HF inpatients age ≥18 years admitted July 2017-June 2019. IMRS was calculated using sex-specific weightings of the complete blood count, basic metabolic profile, and age.

Results: A total of 703 individuals (mean age: 74.12, 44.38% female) were studied. The 30-day IMRS predicted 30-day mortality for both sexes (females n=312: OR=1.19 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.32) per +1, p<0.001; males n=391: OR=1.23 (CI 1.12 to 1.36) per +1, p<0.001). The GWTG-HF risk score (only available in n=300, 42.7%) was independent of IMRS for 30-day mortality (OR=1.11 (CI 1.06 to 1.16) per +1, p<0.001). Using thresholds in bivariate modelling, IMRS (high vs low risk, OR=8.25 (CI 2.19 to 31.09), p=0.002) and the GWTG-HF score (tertile 3 vs 1: OR=2.18 (CI 0.84 to 5.68), p=0.11) independently predicted mortality. In multivariable analyses including covariables, IMRS (high vs low risk: OR=6.69 (CI 1.75 to 25.60), p=0.005) and the GWTG-HF score (tertile 3 vs 1: OR=2.62 (CI 0.96 to 7.12), p=0.06) remained predictors of mortality. Results were similar for 1-year mortality.

Conclusions: The IMRS and GWTG-HF scores predicted mortality of patients with HF in a large rural healthcare system. Future study of these scores as initial clinical risk estimators for evaluating their utility in improving patient health outcomes and increasing cost effectiveness is warranted.

Keywords: biomarkers; cardiomyopathy; dilated; heart failure; quality of health care.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study

MeSH terms

Age Factors
Aged
Cause of Death / trends
Female
Guidelines as Topic*
Heart Failure / mortality*
Hospital Mortality / trends
Humans
Male
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Registries*
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment / methods*
Risk Factors
Survival Rate / trends
United States / epidemiology