BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a difficult challenge for physicians. Risk scores have become the cornerstone in clinical and interventional decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed was systematically searched for ACS risk score studies. They were divided into ACS studies (evaluating Unstable Angina; UA, Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NSTEMI, and ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; STEMI), UA/NSTEMI studies or STEMI studies. The c-statistics of validation studies were pooled when appropriate with random-effect methods. 7 derivation studies with 25,525 ACS patients and 15 validation studies including 257,654 people were formally appraised. Pooled analysis of GRACE scores, both at short (0.82; 0.80-0.89 I.C 95%) and long term follow up (0.84; 0.82-0.87; I.C 95%) showed the best performance, with similar results to Simple Risk Index (SRI) derivation cohorts at short term. For NSTEMI/UA, 18 derivation studies with 56,560 patients and 18 validation cohorts with 56,673 patients were included. Pooled analysis of validations studies showed c-statistics of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.52-0.57) and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.62-0.71) for short and long term TIMI validation studies, and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.79-9.87) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.89) for short and long term GRACE studies. For STEMI, 15 studies with 134,557 patients with derivation scores, and 17 validation studies with 187,619 patients showed a pooled c-statistic of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.72-0.85) for TIMI at short and long term, and a pooled c-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.81-0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80-0.82) for GRACE at short and long terms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TIMI and GRACE are the risk scores that up until now have been most extensively investigated, with GRACE performing better. There are other potentially useful ACS risk scores available however these have not undergone rigorous validation. This study suggests that these other scores may be potentially useful and should be further researched.
BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a difficult challenge for physicians. Risk scores have become the cornerstone in clinical and interventional decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed was systematically searched for ACS risk score studies. They were divided into ACS studies (evaluating Unstable Angina; UA, Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NSTEMI, and ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; STEMI), UA/NSTEMI studies or STEMI studies. The c-statistics of validation studies were pooled when appropriate with random-effect methods. 7 derivation studies with 25,525 ACS patients and 15 validation studies including 257,654 people were formally appraised. Pooled analysis of GRACE scores, both at short (0.82; 0.80-0.89 I.C 95%) and long term follow up (0.84; 0.82-0.87; I.C 95%) showed the best performance, with similar results to Simple Risk Index (SRI) derivation cohorts at short term. For NSTEMI/UA, 18 derivation studies with 56,560 patients and 18 validation cohorts with 56,673 patients were included. Pooled analysis of validations studies showed c-statistics of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.52-0.57) and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.62-0.71) for short and long term TIMI validation studies, and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.79-9.87) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.89) for short and long term GRACE studies. For STEMI, 15 studies with 134,557 patients with derivation scores, and 17 validation studies with 187,619 patients showed a pooled c-statistic of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.72-0.85) for TIMI at short and long term, and a pooled c-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.81-0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80-0.82) for GRACE at short and long terms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TIMI and GRACE are the risk scores that up until now have been most extensively investigated, with GRACE performing better. There are other potentially useful ACS risk scores available however these have not undergone rigorous validation. This study suggests that these other scores may be potentially useful and should be further researched.
Authors: Jussi A Hernesniemi; Shadi Mahdiani; Juho A Tynkkynen; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Pashupati P Mishra; Terho Lehtimäki; Markku Eskola; Kjell Nikus; Kari Antila; Niku Oksala Journal: Ann Med Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Hussain A Isma'eel; George E Sakr; Mohamad M Almedawar; Jihan Fathallah; Torkom Garabedian; Savo Bou Zein Eddine; Lara Nasreddine; Imad H Elhajj Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2015-06
Authors: Richard A Brogan; Christopher J Malkin; Phillip D Batin; Alexander D Simms; James M McLenachan; Christopher P Gale Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2014-08-26
Authors: Vera Bittner; Lisandro D Colantonio; Yuling Dai; Mark Woodward; Matthew T Mefford; Robert S Rosenson; Paul Muntner; Keri L Monda; Meredith L Kilgore; Byron C Jaeger; Emily B Levitan Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676