LVS‐HARMED Risk Score for Incident Heart Failure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Present to the Emergency Department: Data from a World‐Wide Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heart failure (HF) is a common complication to atrial fibrillation (AF), leading to rehospitalization and death. Early identification of patients with AF at risk for HF might improve outcomes. We aimed to derive a score to predict 1-year risk of new-onset HF after an emergency department (ED) visit with AF. Methods and Results The RE-LY AF (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy) registry enrolled patients with AF presenting to an ED in 47 countries, and followed them for a year. The end point was HF hospitalization and/or HF death. Among 15 400 ED patients, 9765 had no prior HF (mean age, 64.9±14.9 years). Within 1 year, new-onset HF developed in 6.8% of patients, of whom 21% died of HF. Independent predictors of HF included left ventricular hypertrophy (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.19-1.82), valvular heart disease (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.18-2.04), smoking (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.78), height (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95 per 3 cm), age (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15 per 5 years), rheumatic heart disease (OR, 1.77, 95% CI, 1.24-2.51), prior myocardial infarction (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.45-2.36), remaining in AF at ED discharge (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.46-2.36), and diabetes (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09-1.64). A continuous risk prediction score (LVS-HARMED [left ventricular, valvular heart disease, smoking or other tobacco use, height, age, rheumatic heart disease, myocardial infarction, emergency department discharge rhythm, and diabetes]) had good discrimination (C statistic, 0.735; 95% CI, 0.716-0.755). Validation was conducted internally using bootstrapping (optimism-corrected C statistic, 0.705) and externally (C statistic, 0.699). The 1-year incidence of HF hospitalization and/or HF death across quartile groups of the score was 1.1%, 4.5%, 6.9%, and 14.4%, respectively. LVS-HARMED also predicted incident stroke (C statistic, 0.753; 95% CI, 0.728-0.778). Conclusions The LVS-HARMED score predicts new-onset HF after an ED visit for AF. Preventative strategies should be considered in patients with high LVS-HARMED HF risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".