Lev Eli I, Kornowski Ran, Vaknin-Assa Hana, Porter Avital, Teplitsky Igal, Ben-Dor Itsik, Brosh David, Fuchs Shmuel, Battler Alexander, Assali Abid
Cardiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Am J Cardiol. 2008 Jul 1;102(1):6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.02.088. Epub 2008 May 28.
Accurate risk stratification has an important role in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Even in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), for whom early therapeutic options are well defined, risk stratification has an impact on early and late therapeutic decision making. We aimed to compare the prognostic value of 4 risk scores used to evaluate patients with STEMI. We conducted a prospective registry of all patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI from January 2001 to June 2006. Excluded were patients with cardiogenic shock. A total of 855 consecutive patients were included in the analysis (age 60.5 +/- 13 years, 19% women, 28% with diabetes, and 48% with anterior wall myocardial infarction). For each patient, the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty complications (CADILLAC), Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI), and Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk scores were calculated using specific clinical variables and angiographic characteristics. Thirty-day and 1-year clinical outcomes were assessed. The predictive accuracy of the 4 risk scores was evaluated using the area under the curve or C statistic method. The CADILLAC, TIMI, and PAMI risk scores all had relatively high predictive accuracy for 30-day and 1-year mortality (C statistic range 0.72 to 0.82), with slight superiority of the CADILLAC score. These 3 risk scores also performed well for prediction of reinfarction at 30 days (C statistic range 0.6 to 0.7). The GRACE score did not perform as well and had low predictive accuracy for mortality (C statistic 0.47). In conclusion, risk stratification of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention using the CADILLAC, TIMI, or PAMI risk scores provide important prognostic information and enables accurate identification of high-risk patients.
准确的风险分层在急性冠状动脉综合征患者的管理中具有重要作用。即使在ST段抬高型急性心肌梗死(STEMI)患者中,早期治疗方案已明确,但风险分层仍会影响早期和晚期治疗决策。我们旨在比较用于评估STEMI患者的4种风险评分的预后价值。我们对2001年1月至2006年6月期间接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的所有STEMI患者进行了一项前瞻性登记研究。排除心源性休克患者。共有855例连续患者纳入分析(年龄60.5±13岁,女性占19%,糖尿病患者占28%,前壁心肌梗死患者占48%)。对于每位患者,使用特定的临床变量和血管造影特征计算心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)、控制阿昔单抗和降低晚期血管成形术并发症的器械研究(CADILLAC)、心肌梗死直接血管成形术(PAMI)以及急性冠状动脉事件全球登记(GRACE)风险评分。评估30天和1年的临床结局。使用曲线下面积或C统计量方法评估这4种风险评分的预测准确性。CADILLAC、TIMI和PAMI风险评分对30天和1年死亡率均具有相对较高的预测准确性(C统计量范围为0.72至0.82),CADILLAC评分略占优势。这3种风险评分在预测30天时再梗死方面也表现良好(C统计量范围为0.6至0.7)。GRACE评分表现不佳,对死亡率的预测准确性较低(C统计量为0.47)。总之,使用CADILLAC、TIMI或PAMI风险评分对接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的STEMI患者进行风险分层可提供重要的预后信息,并能准确识别高危患者。