Literature DB >> 17437970

Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better.

Andrew T Yan1, Raymond T Yan, Mary Tan, Amparo Casanova, Marino Labinaz, Kumar Sridhar, David H Fitchett, Anatoly Langer, Shaun G Goodman.   

Abstract

AIMS: Our objectives were (i) to compare the discriminatory performance of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS), Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy risk score (PURSUIT RS), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events risk score (GRACE RS) for in-hospital and 1 year mortality across the broad spectrum of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and (ii) to determine their incremental prognostic utility beyond overall risk assessment by physicians. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We calculated the TIMI RS, PURSUIT RS, and GRACE RS for 1,728 patients with non-ST-elevation ACS in the prospective, multicentre, Canadian ACS II Registry. Discriminatory performance was measured by the c-statistic (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve) and compared by the method described by DeLong. TIMI RS, PURSUIT RS, and GRACE RS all demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital death (c-statistics = 0.68, 0.80, 0.81, respectively, all P < 0.001) and 1 year mortality (c-statistics = 0.69, 0.77, 0.79, respectively, all P < 0.0001). However, PURSUIT RS and GRACE RS performed significantly better than the TIMI RS in predicting in-hospital (P = 0.036 and 0.02, respectively) and 1 year (P = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively) outcomes. In multivariable analysis adjusting for the use of in-hospital revascularization, stratification by tertiles of risk scores (into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups) furnished independent and greater prognostic information compared with risk assessment by treating physicians for 1 year outcome.
CONCLUSION: Compared with TIMI RS, both PURSUIT RS and GRACE RS allow better discrimination for in-hospital and 1 year mortality in patients presenting with a wide range of ACS. All three risk scores confer additional important prognostic value beyond global risk assessment by physicians. These validated risk scores may refine risk stratification, thereby improving patient care in routine clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17437970     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  50 in total

1.  Mental health reform fails.

Authors: 
Journal:  Mod Healthc (Short Term Care)       Date:  1975-12

2.  Machine learning for risk prediction of acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Jacob P VanHouten; John M Starmer; Nancy M Lorenzi; David J Maron; Thomas A Lasko
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2014-11-14

3.  Temporal trends in the use of invasive cardiac procedures for non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk stratification.

Authors:  S Jedrzkiewicz; S G Goodman; R T Yan; R C Welsh; J Kornder; J Paul DeYoung; G C Wong; B Rose; F R Grondin; R Gallo; W Huang; J M Gore; A T Yan
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.223

4.  The effect of solar-geomagnetic activity during and after admission on survival in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Jone Vencloviene; Ruta Babarskiene; Irena Milvidaite; Raimondas Kubilius; Jolanta Stasionyte
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 3.787

5.  The HEART score with high-sensitive troponin T at presentation: ruling out patients with chest pain in the emergency room.

Authors:  Luca Santi; Gabriele Farina; Annagiulia Gramenzi; Franco Trevisani; Margherita Baccini; Mauro Bernardi; Mario Cavazza
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  Adjustment of the GRACE score by growth differentiation factor 15 enables a more accurate appreciation of risk in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Christian Widera; Michael J Pencina; Allison Meisner; Tibor Kempf; Kerstin Bethmann; Ivonne Marquardt; Hugo A Katus; Evangelos Giannitsis; Kai C Wollert
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 29.983

7.  Comparison of the Predictive Roles of Risk Scores of In-Hospital Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Erdal Aktürk; Lütfü Aşkın; Hakan Taşolar; Serdar Türkmen; Hakan Kaya
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 1.927

8.  In-hospital complications after invasive strategy for the management of Non STEMI: women fare as well as men.

Authors:  Caroline Berthillot; Dominique Stephan; Michel Chauvin; Gerald Roul
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 2.298

9.  Early intervention: which patients and how early?

Authors:  J Matthew Brennan; John L Petersen
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.931

10.  Does simplicity compromise accuracy in ACS risk prediction? A retrospective analysis of the TIMI and GRACE risk scores.

Authors:  Krishna G Aragam; Umesh U Tamhane; Eva Kline-Rogers; Jin Li; Keith A A Fox; Shaun G Goodman; Kim A Eagle; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.