BACKGROUND: The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in "all-comer" patients undergoingpercutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEF(low) ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEF(mid) ≤1.277, and ACEF(high) >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEF(low)=92.1%, ACEF(mid)=89.5%, and ACEF(high)=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEF(low) than in ACEF(mid) and ACEF(high) (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEF(high) vs 5.2% for ACEF(mid) and 2.5% for ACEF(low); hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEF(high) group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEF(high) group (ACEF(low)=1.2%, ACEF(mid)=3.5%, and ACEF(high)=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in "all-comer" patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEF(low) ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEF(mid) ≤1.277, and ACEF(high) >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEF(low)=92.1%, ACEF(mid)=89.5%, and ACEF(high)=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEF(low) than in ACEF(mid) and ACEF(high) (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEF(high) vs 5.2% for ACEF(mid) and 2.5% for ACEF(low); hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEF(high) group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEF(high) group (ACEF(low)=1.2%, ACEF(mid)=3.5%, and ACEF(high)=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.
Authors: Artur Dziewierz; Zbigniew Siudak; Tomasz Rakowski; Wojciech Zasada; Katarzyna Krzanowska; Dariusz Dudek Journal: Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 1.426