Suppr超能文献

ACEF 在非 ST 段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征的长期随访中优于其他风险评分。

ACEF performed better than other risk scores in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome during long term follow-up.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Split, Split, Croatia.

University Department of Health Studies, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

出版信息

BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021 Feb 3;21(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12872-020-01841-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is an important clinical method, but long-term studies on patients subjected to all-treatment strategies are lacking. Therefore, the aim was to compare several established risk scores in the all-treatment NSTE-ACS cohort during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Consecutive patients (n = 276) with NSTE-ACS undergoing coronary angiography were recruited between September 2012 and May 2015. Six risk scores for all patients were calculated, namely GRACE 2.0, ACEF, SYNTAX, Clinical SYNTAX, SYNTAX II PCI and SYNTAX II CABG. The primary end-point was Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) which was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or urgent coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 33 months, 64 MACE outcomes were recorded (23.2%). There was no difference between risk score categories, except in the highest risk group of ACEF and SYNTAX II PCI scores which exhibited significantly more MACE (51.6%, N = 33 and 45.3%, N = 29, P = 0.024, respectively). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis of individual variables, only age and atrial fibrillation were significant predictors for MACE (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05, P = 0.023 and HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.04-3.89, P = 0.037, respectively). Furthermore, multivariate analysis of the risk scores showed significant prediction of MACE only with ACEF score (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.36-3.44, P = 0.001). The overall performance of GRACE, SYNTAX, Clinical SYNTAX and SYNTAX II CABG was poor with AUC values of 0.596, 0.507, 0.530 and 0.582, respectively, while ACEF and SYNTAX II PCI showed the best absolute AUC values for MACE (0.630 and 0.626, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ACEF risk score showed better discrimination than other risk scores in NSTE-ACS patients undergoing all-treatment strategies over long-term follow-up and it could represent a fast and user-friendly tool to stratify NSTE-ACS patients.

摘要

背景

非 ST 段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征(NSTE-ACS)患者的风险分层是一种重要的临床方法,但缺乏对接受所有治疗策略的患者进行长期研究。因此,本研究旨在比较在长期随访中接受所有治疗的 NSTE-ACS 队列中几种已建立的风险评分。

方法

连续纳入 2012 年 9 月至 2015 年 5 月接受冠状动脉造影的 NSTE-ACS 患者(n=276)。计算了适用于所有患者的 6 种风险评分,即 GRACE 2.0、ACEF、SYNTAX、Clinical SYNTAX、SYNTAX II PCI 和 SYNTAX II CABG。主要终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE),定义为心脏性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、缺血性卒中和紧急冠状动脉血运重建的复合终点。

结果

中位随访 33 个月期间,记录了 64 例 MACE 结局(23.2%)。各风险评分组之间无差异,但 ACEF 和 SYNTAX II PCI 评分的最高风险组中 MACE 发生率显著更高(51.6%,n=33 和 45.3%,n=29,P=0.024)。多变量 Cox 回归分析个体变量,仅年龄和心房颤动是 MACE 的显著预测因素(HR 1.03,95%CI 1.00-1.05,P=0.023 和 HR 2.02,95%CI 1.04-3.89,P=0.037)。此外,风险评分的多变量分析仅显示 ACEF 评分对 MACE 有显著预测作用(HR 2.16,95%CI 1.36-3.44,P=0.001)。GRACE、SYNTAX、Clinical SYNTAX 和 SYNTAX II CABG 的总体性能较差,AUC 值分别为 0.596、0.507、0.530 和 0.582,而 ACEF 和 SYNTAX II PCI 对 MACE 的 AUC 值最高(0.630 和 0.626)。

结论

在接受长期随访的接受所有治疗策略的 NSTE-ACS 患者中,ACEF 风险评分的鉴别能力优于其他风险评分,可作为一种快速、用户友好的工具对 NSTE-ACS 患者进行分层。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b8a7/7860189/650d308d377b/12872_2020_1841_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验