Abstract:Background Heart failure (HF) risk prediction models combine multivariable patient data to estimate an individual's risk of developing HF. By detecting at-risk and early-stage patients, models may facilitate earlier intervention to prevent or delay HF development. Previous systematic reviews were unable to recommend any existing prediction models for clinical use due to insufficient evidence and lack of guidelines on appraising study quality at their time of publication. Purpose To summarize the performance of risk prediction models for incident HF and identify models for further validation and potential clinical use. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2021 for English-language studies developing or validating HF risk prediction models. Studies were also retrieved from two previous systematic reviews. We narratively summarized model characteristics (e.g. model type, predictors used, prediction horizon) and study methodology (e.g. validation methods). Performance was assessed among all models validated in ≥ 1 cohort. For all models validated in ≥ 2 cohorts, we pooled discrimination measures using random-effects meta-analyses. Calibration was descriptively summarized based on individual study results from statistical tests and graph digitization of calibration plots. Study quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Results Of 18,937 publications screened, 41 studies consisting of 120 prediction models were included. Twenty models were both derived and validated, 99 only derived, and 1 only validated. Risk of bias was rated as high in nearly all (94.7%) PROBAST assessments, mostly attributable to issues with analysis. Among 21 models validated in ≥ 1 cohort, most had moderate (61.9%, C-statistic 0.7 to <0.8) or high (23.8%, C-statistic 0.8 to <0.9) discrimination. In patients with low predicted risk (<10%), the calibration was adequate. Nine (42.9%) of these 21 models were presented as web-based calculators and five (23.8%) as points-based risk scores. Based on performance, number of validation cohorts, study risk of bias, and user friendliness, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC), Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), Pooled Cohort equations to Prevent Heart Failure (PCP-HF), and Health ABC models emerged as the most promising risk scores for clinical practice. Conclusions Given their acceptable performance but high risk of bias, future studies should focus on the external validation of these models in studies of high methodological rigor. Models should be validated in a greater diversity of patient populations, particularly with respect to race. Impact analyses assessing how the clinical implementation of these models affects patient outcomes are also required prior to their routine use. Once validated, these models may help guide clinical decision making to prevent the onset of HF with early, aggressive risk factor modification.Discrimination in 21 validated modelsCharacteristics of recommended models

Major Limitations of Cardiovascular Risk Scores

Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction Models in Chinese Population- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Risk estimation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: considerations for appropriate risk prediction model selection

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review

Can risk be predicted? An umbrella systematic review of current risk prediction models for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and hypertension

Risk prediction models for incident heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluating risk prediction models for adults with heart failure: A systematic literature review

Communicating cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

Novel biomarkers with potential for cardiovascular risk reclassification

Cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review of prediction models

Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models

Improving 10-year cardiovascular risk prediction in apparently healthy people: flexible addition of risk modifiers on top of SCORE2

Artificial Neural Network Based Model for Cardiovascular Risk Stratification in Hypertension.

P129 ASSESS THE ACCURACY OF FOUR RISK ASSESSMENT MODELS (RISKFRS, RISKWHO, RISKACC/AHA, AND RISKJBS) IN PREDICTING 10-YEAR CARDIOVASCULAR EVENT RISK IN INDIAN ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION PATIENTS

Stroke risk prediction models: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiovascular Risk Models in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and External Validation of Models

Validity of the models predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases in Asia: A systematic review and prediction model meta-analysis

Enhancing Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction with Machine Learning Models

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Models with Respect to the Clinical Interpretation of Atherosclerosis in a Different Type II Diabetes Cohort.

Computational Models Used to Predict Cardiovascular Complications in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review

Performance of the Framingham risk models and pooled cohort equations for predicting 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis