Liu Yuan-Hui, Liu Yong, Zhou Ying-Ling, He Peng-Cheng, Yu Dan-Qing, Li Li-Wen, Xie Nian-Jin, Guo Wei, Tan Ning, Chen Ji-Yan
Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academic of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academic of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Jun 15;117(12):1896-903. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.03.033. Epub 2016 Apr 6.
Accurate risk stratification for contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is important for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We aimed to compare the prognostic value of validated risk scores for CIN. We prospectively enrolled 422 consecutive patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. Mehran; Gao; Chen; age, serum creatinine (SCr), or glomerular filtration rate, and ejection fraction (ACEF or AGEF); and Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events risk scores were calculated for each patient. The prognostic accuracy of the 6 scores for CIN, and in-hospital and 3-year all-cause mortality and major adverse clinical events (MACEs), was assessed using the c-statistic for discrimination and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for calibration. CIN was defined as either CIN-narrow (increase in SCr ≥0.5 mg/dl) or CIN broad (≥0.5 mg/dl and/or a ≥25% increase in baseline SCr). All risk scores had relatively high predictive values for CIN-narrow (c-statistic: 0.746 to 0.873) and performed well for prediction of in-hospital death (0.784 to 0.936), MACEs (0.685 to 0.763), and 3-year all-cause mortality (0.655 to 0.871). The ACEF and AGEF risk scores had better discrimination and calibration for CIN-narrow and in-hospital outcomes. However, all risk score exhibited low predictive accuracy for CIN-broad (0.555 to 0.643) and 3-year MACEs (0.541 to 0.619). In conclusion, risk scores for predicting CIN perform well in stratifying the risk of CIN-narrow, in-hospital death or MACEs, and 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. The ACEF and AGEF risk scores appear to have greater prognostic value.
对于接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,准确分层造影剂肾病(CIN)风险很重要。我们旨在比较已验证的CIN风险评分的预后价值。我们前瞻性纳入了422例连续接受PPCI的STEMI患者。为每位患者计算梅兰、高、陈风险评分;年龄、血清肌酐(SCr)或肾小球滤过率,以及射血分数(ACEF或AGEF);和急性冠状动脉事件全球注册风险评分。使用用于区分的c统计量和用于校准的Hosmer-Lemeshow检验评估6种CIN评分、院内及3年全因死亡率和主要不良临床事件(MACE)的预后准确性。CIN定义为CIN-狭义(SCr升高≥0.5mg/dl)或CIN-广义(≥0.5mg/dl和/或基线SCr升高≥25%)。所有风险评分对CIN-狭义均具有相对较高的预测价值(c统计量:0.746至0.873),并且在预测院内死亡(0.784至0.936)、MACE(0.685至0.763)和3年全因死亡率(0.655至0.871)方面表现良好。ACEF和AGEF风险评分对CIN-狭义和院内结局具有更好的区分度和校准度。然而,所有风险评分对CIN-广义(0.555至0.643)和3年MACE(0.541至0.619)的预测准确性较低。总之,预测CIN的风险评分在对接受PPCI的STEMI患者的CIN-狭义、院内死亡或MACE以及3年全因死亡率风险进行分层方面表现良好。ACEF和AGEF风险评分似乎具有更大的预后价值。