OpiCalc Logo

OpiCalc

--- Clinical Tools

Logo
OpiCalc
ABC-AF Bleeding ScoreABC-AF Stroke ScoreABCD2 ScoreADD-RSAortic Valve Calcium ScoreAPPLE ScoreASCVD (Pooled Cohort)AVA (Continuity Equation)BAG-AHF ScoreBiplane Simpson EFBlood Pressure PercentilesBrugada Criteria (VT vs SVT)Cardiac Output IndexCHA2DS2-VAScCHADS2Cornell Voltage CriteriaCRUSADE Bleeding ScoreDAPT ScoreDASIDuke Treadmill ScoreE/A RatioEDACS ScoreEHMRGEHRA ScoreEmbolic Risk ScoreEROA (PISA Method)EuroSCORE IIFFR (Fractional Flow Reserve)Fick Cardiac OutputFramingham 10-Year RiskFriedewald LDL EquationGorlin EquationGRACE ScoreGupta MICA (NSQIP)GWTG-HF ScoreH2FPEF ScoreHakki FormulaHAS-BLEDHEART PathwayHEART ScoreHEMORR2HAGEShs-Troponin 0h/1h ESC AlgorithmiFRINTERCHEST ScoreKillip ClassificationLee's RCRILV Mass IndexLV Stroke Work IndexMAGGIC Risk ScoreMAP CalculatorMartin/Hopkins LDLModified Duke CriteriaModified Sgarbossa CriteriaMVA (Pressure Half-Time)Non-HDL CholesterolNT-proBNP Age-Adjusted ThresholdsORBIT ScoreOttawa Heart Failure RiskPulse PressurePVR CalculatorPVR IndexQRISK3QTc (Bazett)QTc (Fridericia)REVEAL 2.0 ScoreReynolds Risk ScoreROSIRVSP CalculatorSchwartz Score (LQTS)SCORE2Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM)Sgarbossa CriteriaShock IndexSokolow-Lyon VoltageStroke Volume IndexSVR CalculatorSYNTAX ScoreSYNTAX Score IITAPSETeichholz FormulaTIMI (STEMI)TIMI (UA/NSTEMI)Troponin Delta CalculatorValvular GradientsVancouver Chest Pain RuleVereckei AlgorithmWATCHDM ScoreWilkins ScoreWood Units Calculator

Clinical Evidence and Methodology

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Clinical Reference Hub

Curated insights • How it Works • Practical Pearls • Evidence Base

CLINICAL INSIGHT

When to Use

When to Use

  • Prognostication of mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.
  • Validated for both Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF).
  • To guide clinical decision-making and patient counseling regarding long-term survival.
CLINICAL INSIGHT

How it Works

Key Variables

  • Age and Sex
  • LVEF (Ejection Fraction)
  • NYHA Functional Class
  • Serum Creatinine
  • Body Mass Index (BMI)
  • Systolic BP
  • Smoking Status
  • Diabetes
  • COPD
  • Medications (ACEi/ARB, Beta-blockers)

Biological Basis

The MAGGIC score was derived from a meta-analysis of 30 studies (n=39,372). It is often considered more robust than the Seattle Heart Failure Model because it was derived from a much larger and more diverse dataset that included HFpEF patients.

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Practical Pearls

MAGGIC vs. Seattle

While the Seattle model is excellent for showing the impact of specific medications, MAGGIC is often preferred for its simplicity and its inclusion of HFpEF patients, who make up a significant portion of the modern heart failure population.

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Next Steps

Complementary Calculators

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Evidence Base

Primary Derivation

Predicting survival in heart failure: a risk score based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies.

Pocock SJ, et al.Eur Heart J.2013

MAGGIC Risk Score

MAGGIC Risk Score: Validated predictor of mortality in patients with Heart Failure (both HFrEF and HFpEF).

Male Gender
Diabetes Melitus
COPD
HF Diagnosis > 18 months ago
Current Smoker
Taking Beta-Blocker
Taking ACEi / ARB
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Clinical Reference Hub

Curated insights • How it Works • Practical Pearls • Evidence Base

CLINICAL INSIGHT

When to Use

When to Use

  • Prognostication of mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.
  • Validated for both Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF).
  • To guide clinical decision-making and patient counseling regarding long-term survival.
CLINICAL INSIGHT

How it Works

Key Variables

  • Age and Sex
  • LVEF (Ejection Fraction)
  • NYHA Functional Class
  • Serum Creatinine
  • Body Mass Index (BMI)
  • Systolic BP
  • Smoking Status
  • Diabetes
  • COPD
  • Medications (ACEi/ARB, Beta-blockers)

Biological Basis

The MAGGIC score was derived from a meta-analysis of 30 studies (n=39,372). It is often considered more robust than the Seattle Heart Failure Model because it was derived from a much larger and more diverse dataset that included HFpEF patients.

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Practical Pearls

MAGGIC vs. Seattle

While the Seattle model is excellent for showing the impact of specific medications, MAGGIC is often preferred for its simplicity and its inclusion of HFpEF patients, who make up a significant portion of the modern heart failure population.

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Next Steps

Complementary Calculators

CLINICAL INSIGHT

Evidence Base

Primary Derivation

Predicting survival in heart failure: a risk score based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies.

Pocock SJ, et al.Eur Heart J.2013