Prognostic scales in dilated cardiomyopathy – Past, present, and future.

In the ever-evolving realm of contemporary medicine, the skill of accurate prognostication stands as an indispensable pillar, bearing equal weight with the essential arts of prompt clinical diagnosis and robust therapeutic intervention strategies. Across decades, cardiology has methodically crafted an array of prognostic tools, primarily addressing prevalent diseases such as coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure (HF). Rooted in expansive multi-centre registries and randomized trials, each with their own specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, these models naturally vary in terms of study population, follow-up duration, and a range of clinical parameters, including age, sex, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, ejection fraction (EF), and HF subtypes (preserved EF vs. reduced EF or chronic vs. acute vs. advanced) [ [1] Anaba U. Ishola A. Alabre A. Bui A. Prince M. Okafor H. Addison D. Diversity in modern heart failure trials: where are we, and where are we going. Int. J. Cardiol. 2022; 348: 95-101https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.12.018 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1) Google Scholar ]. Moreover, the overall score designs diverge significantly, from the number of factors involved (ranging from 5 to 22) to the type of parameters incorporated and the method for calculating mortality risk. Applicability and performance of heart failure prognostic scores in dilated cardiomyopathy: the real-world experience of an Italian referral center for cardiomyopathiesInternational Journal of CardiologyPreviewThe performance of heart failure (HF) risk models is validated in the general population with HF but in specific aetiological settings, and specifically in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), has scarcely been explored. We tested eight of the main prognostic scores used in HF in a large real-world population of patients with DCM. Full-Text PDF