文献速递心力衰竭与心肌病

心力衰竭风险预测模型的系统评价与荟萃分析

Risk prediction models for incident heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PubMed 文献 · Heart · 2026-04-20

该系统评价与荟萃分析汇总了心衰风险预测模型在验证研究中的性能表现。检索Medline和Embase(2014-2025)及既往三篇系统评价,纳入76项研究、238个模型。在至少一个队列中验证的64个模型中,4个具有中等区分度、8个具有高区分度;PREVENT、ARIC和MESA模型最有前景,应优先进一步验证和开展影响研究。

要点

  • 在至少一个队列中验证的64个模型中,4个具有中等区分度、8个具有高区分度。
  • PREVENT、ARIC和MESA模型表现最有前景,应优先进一步验证和影响研究。
  • 82.9%的评估存在高偏倚风险,低预测风险患者中校准可能充分。

核心结论

  • PREVENT、ARIC和MESA风险评分表现出有前景的性能,应优先进一步验证并推进至影响研究。

研究设计与样本

  • 系统评价与荟萃分析,检索Medline和Embase(2014-2025)及既往三篇系统评价,纳入76项研究、238个模型。
  • 使用随机效应荟萃分析合并区分度指标,校准情况以描述性方式总结。
  • 使用PROBAST评估个体研究偏倚风险,采用GRADE方法评估证据确定性。
  • PROSPERO注册号:CRD42021266756。

主要发现

  • 82.9%的评估存在高偏倚风险。
  • 在至少一个队列中验证的64个模型中,4个具有中等区分度、8个具有高区分度(中等至高等确定性)。
  • 在低预测风险患者中,校准可能充分。
  • 外部验证模型中,14个使用机器学习推导,6个纳入蛋白质组学和多基因风险评分等新型生物标志物,9个将健康社会决定因素作为预测因子。

临床怎么用

  • PREVENT、ARIC和MESA模型可考虑用于心衰风险预测,但需进一步验证后再广泛用于临床决策。
  • 现有模型多数存在高偏倚风险,临床使用时需谨慎解读其预测性能。

局限性

  • 82.9%的评估存在高偏倚风险,可能影响模型性能估计的可靠性。

以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。

原文

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients at risk of heart failure (HF) provides opportunities for preventative management. Though models have been developed to predict HF incidence, their validation remains unclear. Our objective was to summarise the performance, as observed in validation studies, of risk prediction models for incident HF. METHODS: In addition to articles from three previous systematic reviews, a search in Medline and Embase from 2014 to 2025 identified derivation or validation studies for incident HF prediction models. Performance was assessed in models validated in ≥1 cohort, with random-effects meta-analyses used to pool discrimination measures, and calibration descriptively summarised. We used the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool to assess risk of bias in individual studies and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess certainty in inferences drawn from the evidence. RESULTS: From 24 531 publications identified, 76 studies representing 238 models were included. Risk of bias was high in 82.9% of assessments. With moderate to high certainty, among 64 models validated in at least one cohort, four models had moderate and eight models had high discrimination. In patients with low predicted risk, calibration may have been adequate. The Predicting Risk of CVD EVENTs (PREVENT), Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC), and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) models were most promising for further validation and impact studies. Among externally validated models, 14 were derived using machine learning, six incorporated novel biomarkers such as proteomics and polygenic risk scores, and nine included measures of social determinants of health as predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT, ARIC and MESA risk scores demonstrate promising performance and should be prioritised for further validation and progression to impact studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021266756.

来源:Heart,查看原文。版权归原作者所有。

引用

  1. Navarro, Doumouras, Douglas, et al. Risk prediction models for incident heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2026. PMID: 42009574. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-327118

供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。