Peng Zhou1,2, Jindong Wan1,2, Fei Ran1,2, Feng Gao3, Dachun Yang4, Xiaozhen Dai5, Yun Sun6, Peijian Wang1,2. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Aging and Vascular Homeostasis of Sichuan Higher Education Institutes, Chengdu, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, The General Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, China. 5. School of Biosciences and Technology, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China. 6. Department of Party Secretary, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy is a cornerstone of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment and is thought to be associated with an increased risk of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). However, no well-established model exists to predict subsequent antithrombotic treatment outcomes after CSDH in patients with recent AMI. We aimed to identify a prognostic model to predict the 6-month outcome of treatment with antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective analysis involved 553 patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Several candidate clinical variables and biomarkers were examined in the training cohort (Chengdu training cohort; n=368). Patients with unfavorable outcomes had experienced at least 1 of the following: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), recurrence, or a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 2 to 6. To develop a 6-month outcome prediction model, three approaches were used: (I) a demographic variable model, (II) a clinical marker model and (III) a decision-driven model. A clinical outcome prediction model based on the superior predictors was assessed by logistic regression analysis. The nomogram for the final model was internally validated using a bootstrap procedure and externally validated in an independent cohort (Anhui cohort; n=185). RESULTS: Model A produced 7 predictors of unfavorable outcomes, while models B and C yielded 2 and 1 predictors, respectively. The areas under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.743 [model A; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.680-0.782] to 0.889 (model A + B + C; 95% CI: 0.851-0.916). The final prediction model included age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the early resumption of antithrombotic therapy, hematoma thickness and the presence of abdominal obesity, frailty and previous bleeding. Internal and external validation of the selected final model revealed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope values (internal validation: 0.81 and 0.78; external validation: 0.80 and 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This model provided a risk stratification tool to predict unfavorable outcomes in patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Because the study was based on ten readily practical and available variables, it may be widely applicable to guide management and complement clinical assessment. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy is a cornerstone of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment and is thought to be associated with an increased risk of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). However, no well-established model exists to predict subsequent antithrombotic treatment outcomes after CSDH in patients with recent AMI. We aimed to identify a prognostic model to predict the 6-month outcome of treatment with antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective analysis involved 553 patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Several candidate clinical variables and biomarkers were examined in the training cohort (Chengdu training cohort; n=368). Patients with unfavorable outcomes had experienced at least 1 of the following: major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), recurrence, or a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 2 to 6. To develop a 6-month outcome prediction model, three approaches were used: (I) a demographic variable model, (II) a clinical marker model and (III) a decision-driven model. A clinical outcome prediction model based on the superior predictors was assessed by logistic regression analysis. The nomogram for the final model was internally validated using a bootstrap procedure and externally validated in an independent cohort (Anhui cohort; n=185). RESULTS: Model A produced 7 predictors of unfavorable outcomes, while models B and C yielded 2 and 1 predictors, respectively. The areas under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.743 [model A; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.680-0.782] to 0.889 (model A + B + C; 95% CI: 0.851-0.916). The final prediction model included age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the early resumption of antithrombotic therapy, hematoma thickness and the presence of abdominal obesity, frailty and previous bleeding. Internal and external validation of the selected final model revealed adequate C-statistics and calibration slope values (internal validation: 0.81 and 0.78; external validation: 0.80 and 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This model provided a risk stratification tool to predict unfavorable outcomes in patients with recent AMI with antithrombotic-related CSDH. Because the study was based on ten readily practical and available variables, it may be widely applicable to guide management and complement clinical assessment. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Nihar R Desai; Kevin F Kennedy; David J Cohen; Traci Connolly; Deborah B Diercks; Mauro Moscucci; Stephen Ramee; John Spertus; Tracy Y Wang; Robert L McNamara Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Roxana Mehran; Stuart J Pocock; Eugenia Nikolsky; Tim Clayton; George D Dangas; Ajay J Kirtane; Helen Parise; Martin Fahy; Steven V Manoukian; Frederick Feit; Magnus E Ohman; Bernard Witzenbichler; Giulio Guagliumi; Alexandra J Lansky; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David Gaist; Luis Alberto García Rodríguez; Maja Hellfritzsch; Frantz Rom Poulsen; Bo Halle; Jesper Hallas; Anton Pottegård Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sigrun Halvorsen; Robert F Storey; Bianca Rocca; Dirk Sibbing; Jurrien Ten Berg; Erik Lerkevang Grove; Thomas W Weiss; Jean-Philippe Collet; Felicita Andreotti; Dietrich C Gulba; Gregory Y H Lip; Steen Husted; Gemma Vilahur; Joao Morais; Freek W A Verheugt; Angel Lanas; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Kurt Huber Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-05-14 Impact factor: 29.983