Baseline cardiovascular risk stratification in multiple myeloma: a simple clinical score outperforming established risk models

Clicks: 1
ID: 323288
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #101 of 282 articles by views in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 282 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Cardiovascular events are increasingly recognised during treatment for multiple myeloma, yet prediction tools that are practical at treatment initiation are limited. Whether commonly used cardiovascular (HFA-ICOS) and myeloma-specific (R-MCI, ISS, R-ISS) scores discriminate risk of treatment-related cardiovascular events remains uncertain in real-world cohorts. Purpose To derive a simple baseline clinical risk score for cardiovascular events during multiple myeloma treatment and compare its discriminative performance with HFA-ICOS risk class, R-MCI class, ISS and R-ISS. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a real-world cohort of patients with multiple myeloma. The primary endpoint was a composite cardiovascular event during treatment (heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias, stroke, cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death). Patients were considered evaluable if at least one component was recorded. Baseline predictors were screened using Fisher’s exact test. A parsimonious point-based score was constructed from the strongest baseline predictors. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared with HFA-ICOS, R-MCI, ISS and R-ISS. Results Of 25 patients, 24 were evaluable for the composite endpoint; 9/24 (37.5%) experienced a cardiovascular event. Baseline dyslipidaemia was associated with events (OR 9.63, p=0.033), while prior atrial fibrillation and prior heart failure showed directionally higher risk but did not reach statistical significance due to small numbers (atrial fibrillation: separation with p=0.13; heart failure: OR 3.25, p=0.33). A simple score was derived assigning 2 points for dyslipidaemia, 2 points for prior atrial fibrillation and 1 point for prior heart failure (range 0–5). Event rates increased from 15.4% (score 0) to 60.0% (score 2), 50.0% (score 3) and 100% (scores 4–5). The derived score showed good discrimination (AUC 0.78, n=24). In comparison, discriminative performance was limited for established scores: HFA-ICOS AUC 0.52 (n=23), R-MCI AUC 0.38 (n=23), ISS AUC 0.46 (n=24) and R-ISS AUC 0.56 (n=24). Conclusion A simple baseline clinical score incorporating dyslipidaemia, prior atrial fibrillation and prior heart failure stratified risk of cardiovascular events during multiple myeloma treatment and outperformed HFA-ICOS, R-MCI, ISS and R-ISS in this cohort. This pragmatic approach may support targeted cardio-oncology surveillance at treatment initiation. External validation in larger cohorts is warranted.Cardiovascular event rate ROC curve comparison
Reference Key
openalex_W7172331759 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors L Lorenzo Alves, T Prata Branco, E Andrade, S Amorim, M Paiva, R A Rodrigues
Journal European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag097.116
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag097.116
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.