Chih-Wei Chen1,2, Yi-Chen Hsieh3,4,5, Ming-Hsiung Hsieh2,6, Yung-Kuo Lin2,6, Chun-Yao Huang1,2, Jong-Shiuan Yeh2,6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Research Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine. 3. PhD Program of Neural Regenerative Medicine, College of Medical Science and Technology. 4. PhD Program in Biotechnology Research and Development, College of Pharmacy. 5. Master Program in Applied Molecular Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Municipal Wan-Fang Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk score is widely used in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients to predict the in-hospital outcome for immediate coronary angiography decision and care of unit selection. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the performances of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI), and Revised Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (Revised CADILLAC) risk scores in predicting in-hospital and long-term outcomes in diabetic NSTEMI patients. METHODS: A total of 750 diabetic NSTEMI patients from 27 hospitals were enrolled between January 2013 and December 2015 in the nationwide registry initiated by the Taiwan Society of Cardiology. Four score systems were calculated with receiver operator characteristic analysis used to compare outcome discrimination performance. RESULTS: No studied risk scores reached acceptable discrimination per area under curve (AUC) in the prediction of in-hospital outcome except for the revised CADILLAC score which reached acceptable discrimination in new-onset cardiogenic shock (AUC = 0.7191) and acute renal failure (AUC = 0.7283). In long-term outcomes, only the revised CADILLAC score reached acceptable discrimination of mortality prediction at 6, 12 and 24 months (AUC = 0.7261 at 6 months, 0.7319 at 12 months, and 0.7256 at 24 months). Subgroup analysis based on the revised CADILLAC score risk class showed a significant difference in adjusted mortality rate between low-risk group/intermediate-risk group and high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Only the revised CADILLAC score showed acceptable accuracy to predict the long-term mortality outcome among the scores studied.
BACKGROUND: Risk score is widely used in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients to predict the in-hospital outcome for immediate coronary angiography decision and care of unit selection. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the performances of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI), and Revised Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (Revised CADILLAC) risk scores in predicting in-hospital and long-term outcomes in diabetic NSTEMI patients. METHODS: A total of 750 diabetic NSTEMI patients from 27 hospitals were enrolled between January 2013 and December 2015 in the nationwide registry initiated by the Taiwan Society of Cardiology. Four score systems were calculated with receiver operator characteristic analysis used to compare outcome discrimination performance. RESULTS: No studied risk scores reached acceptable discrimination per area under curve (AUC) in the prediction of in-hospital outcome except for the revised CADILLAC score which reached acceptable discrimination in new-onset cardiogenic shock (AUC = 0.7191) and acute renal failure (AUC = 0.7283). In long-term outcomes, only the revised CADILLAC score reached acceptable discrimination of mortality prediction at 6, 12 and 24 months (AUC = 0.7261 at 6 months, 0.7319 at 12 months, and 0.7256 at 24 months). Subgroup analysis based on the revised CADILLAC score risk class showed a significant difference in adjusted mortality rate between low-risk group/intermediate-risk group and high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Only the revised CADILLAC score showed acceptable accuracy to predict the long-term mortality outcome among the scores studied.
Authors: J S Forrester; C N Merz; T L Bush; J N Cohn; D B Hunninghake; S Parthasarathy; H R Superko Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Amir Halkin; Mandeep Singh; Eugenia Nikolsky; Cindy L Grines; James E Tcheng; Eulogio Garcia; David A Cox; Mark Turco; Thomas D Stuckey; Yingo Na; Alexandra J Lansky; Bernard J Gersh; William W O'Neill; Roxana Mehran; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C L Grines; D A Cox; G W Stone; E Garcia; L A Mattos; A Giambartolomei; B R Brodie; O Madonna; M Eijgelshoven; A J Lansky; W W O'Neill; M C Morice Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David A Cox; Gregg W Stone; Cindy L Grines; Thomas Stuckey; Peter J Zimetbaum; James E Tcheng; Mark Turco; Eulogio Garcia; Giulio Guagliumi; Robert S Iwaoka; Roxana Mehran; William W O'Neill; Alexandra J Lansky; John J Griffin Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Marco Roffi; Carlo Patrono; Jean-Philippe Collet; Christian Mueller; Marco Valgimigli; Felicita Andreotti; Jeroen J Bax; Michael A Borger; Carlos Brotons; Derek P Chew; Baris Gencer; Gerd Hasenfuss; Keld Kjeldsen; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ulf Landmesser; Julinda Mehilli; Debabrata Mukherjee; Robert F Storey; Stephan Windecker Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983