Comparison of prognostic value of different risk score methods on outcome of acute coronary syndrome.
BACKGROUND
Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade (TFG) was a gold standard for comparison of the various methods of evaluating the efficacy of reperfusion, and risk score was a pragmatic method of risk stratification and evaluation of prognosis for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is uncertain whether or not the prognostic value of combining risk score and TFG on outcome of acute coronary syndrome could be improved.


METHODS
A total of 279 consecutive patients with ACS (mean age 67.57 +/- 9.88 years, 69.2% male) admitted to our hospital were enrolled. Clinical risk score, TFG, and combined risk score were calculated. The primary endpoint of this study included cardiac death and noncardiac death; the secondary endpoint included nonfatal stroke, reinfarction, heart failure, and recurrent angina.


RESULTS
During the follow-up of 11.41 +/- 5.33 months, 11 patients reached the primary endpoint, and 23 patients reached the secondary endpoint. The prognostic values evaluated by composite endpoint, primary endpoint, and secondary endpoint were 0.722, 0.685, and 0.721, respectively, for clinical risk score they were 0.774, 0.798, and 0.737, respectively, for TFG they were 0.805, 0.808, and 0.776, respectively, for combined risk score. In pair-wise comparisons of prognostic values, there were no significant differences among these methods, except that the combined risk score can more accurately predict the composite endpoint than the others.


CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the combined risk score is a simple and efficient method of prediction of composite endpoint.
Zhong
Bin
B
Department of Cardiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Liu
Zengzhang
Z
Su
Li
L
Lan
Xianbin
X
Chen
Yunqing
Y
Ling
Zhiyu
Z
Du
Huaan
H
Yin
Yuehui
Y
D054058:Acute Coronary Syndrome / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D000368:Aged; D000787:Angina Pectoris / Q000209:etiology; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000401:mortality; D003326:Coronary Circulation; D005260:Female; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006333:Heart Failure / Q000209:etiology; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000209:etiology; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012008:Recurrence; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D015607:Stents; D020521:Stroke / Q000209:etiology; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Circulation. 1999 Oct 12;100(15):1593-601
10517729
JAMA. 2000 Aug 16;284(7):835-42
10938172
Circulation. 1999 Apr 20;99(15):1945-50
10208996
Am J Cardiol. 2002 Aug 15;90(4):358-63
12161222
Am Heart J. 2007 Jan;153(1):29-35
17174633
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Nov 1;94(9):1113-7
15518603
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Apr 3;39(7):1113-9
11923033
Eur Heart J. 2005 May;26(9):865-72
15764619
Circulation. 2002 Dec 17;106(25):3143-421
12485966
Eur Heart J. 2003 Jan;24(1):28-66
12559937
Eur Heart J. 2005 Apr;26(8):804-47
15769784