Risk Adjustment Model for Preserved Health Status in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: The CHAMP-HF Registry

Background: Health status outcomes are increasingly being promoted as measures of health care quality, given their importance to patients. In heart failure (HF), an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force proposed using the proportion of patients with preserved health status as a quality measure but not as a performance measure because risk adjustment methods were not available. Methods: We built risk adjustment models for alive with preserved health status and for preserved health status alone in a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction across 146 US centers between December 2015 and October 2017. Preserved health status was defined as not having a >= 5-point decrease in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 1 year. Using only patient-level characteristics, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 1-year outcomes and validated using data from 1 to 2 years. We examined model calibration, discrimination, and variability in sites' unadjusted and adjusted rates. Results: Among 3932 participants (median age [interquartile range] 68 years [59-75], 29.7% female, 75.4% White), 2703 (68.7%) were alive with preserved health status, 902 (22.9%) were alive without preserved health status, and 327 (8.3%) had died by 1 year. The final risk adjustment model for alive with preserved health status included baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary, age, race, employment status, annual income, body mass index, depression, atrial fibrillation, renal function, number of hospitalizations in the past 1 year, and duration of HF (optimism-corrected C statistic=0.62 with excellent calibration). Similar results were observed when deaths were ignored. The risk standardized proportion of patients alive with preserved health status across the 146 sites ranged from 62% at the 10th percentile to 75% at the 90th percentile. Variability across sites was modest and changed minimally with risk adjustment. Conclusions: Through leveraging data from a large, outpatient, observational registry, we identified key factors to risk adjust sites' proportions of patients with preserved health status. These data lay the foundation for building quality measures that quantify treatment outcomes from patients' perspectives.