Background The TIMI Score for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was created and validated specifically for this clinical scenario, while the GRACE score is generic to any type of acute coronary syndrome. Objective Between TIMI and GRACE scores, identify the one of better prognostic performance in patients with STEMI. Methods We included 152 individuals consecutively admitted for STEMI. The TIMI and GRACE scores were tested for their discriminatory ability (C-statistics) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow) in relation to hospital death. Results The TIMI score showed equal distribution of patients in the ranges of low, intermediate and high risk (39 %, 27 % and 34 %, respectively), as opposed to the GRACE Score that showed predominant distribution at low risk (80 %, 13 % and 7%, respectively). Case-fatality was 11%. The C-statistics of the TIMI score was 0.87 (95%CI = 0.76 to 0.98), similar to GRACE (0.87, 95%CI = 0.75 to 0.99) - p = 0.71. The TIMI score showed satisfactory calibration represented by χ2 = 1.4 (p = 0.92), well above the calibration of the GRACE score, which showed χ2 = 14 (p = 0.08). This calibration is reflected in the expected incidence ranges for low, intermediate and high risk, according to the TIMI score (0 %, 4.9 % and 25 %, respectively), differently to GRACE (2.4%, 25% and 73%), which featured middle range incidence inappropriately. Conclusion Although the scores show similar discriminatory capacity for hospital death, the TIMI score had better calibration than GRACE. These findings need to be validated populations of different risk profiles.

BackgroundThe ACUITY and CRUSADE scores are validated models for prediction of major bleeding events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the comparative performances of these scores are not known.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of ACUITY and CRUSADE in predicting major bleeding events during ACS.MethodsThis study included 519 patients consecutively admitted for unstable angina, non-ST-elevation or ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The scores were calculated based on admission data. We considered major bleeding events during hospitalization and not related to cardiac surgery, according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (type 3 or 5: hemodynamic instability, need for transfusion, drop in hemoglobin ≥ 3 g, and intracranial, intraocular or fatal bleeding).ResultsMajor bleeding was observed in 31 patients (23 caused by femoral puncture, 5 digestive, 3 in other sites), an incidence of 6%. While both scores were associated with bleeding, ACUITY demonstrated better C-statistics (0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 - 0.82) as compared with CRUSADE (0.62, 95% CI = 0.53 - 0.71; p = 0.04). The best performance of ACUITY was also reflected by a net reclassification improvement of + 0.19 (p = 0.02) over CRUSADE’s definition of low or high risk. Exploratory analysis suggested that the presence of the variables ‘age’ and ‘type of ACS’ in ACUITY was the main reason for its superiority.ConclusionThe ACUITY Score is a better predictor of major bleeding when compared with the CRUSADE Score in patients hospitalized for ACS.

BackgroundCurrently, there is no validated multivariate model to predict probability of obstructive coronary disease in patients with acute chest pain.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a multivariate model to predict coronary artery disease (CAD) based on variables assessed at admission to the coronary care unit (CCU) due to acute chest pain.MethodsA total of 470 patients were studied, 370 utilized as the derivation sample and the subsequent 100 patients as the validation sample. As the reference standard, angiography was required to rule in CAD (stenosis ≥ 70%), while either angiography or a negative noninvasive test could be used to rule it out. As predictors, 13 baseline variables related to medical history, 14 characteristics of chest discomfort, and eight variables from physical examination or laboratory tests were tested.ResultsThe prevalence of CAD was 48%. By logistic regression, six variables remained independent predictors of CAD: age, male gender, relief with nitrate, signs of heart failure, positive electrocardiogram, and troponin. The area under the curve (AUC) of this final model was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.75 - 0.84) in the derivation sample and 0.86 (95%CI = 0.79 - 0.93) in the validation sample. Hosmer-Lemeshow's test indicated good calibration in both samples (p = 0.98 and p = 0.23, respectively). Compared with a basic model containing electrocardiogram and troponin, the full model provided an AUC increment of 0.07 in both derivation (p = 0.0002) and validation (p = 0.039) samples. Integrated discrimination improvement was 0.09 in both derivation (p < 0.001) and validation (p < 0.0015) samples.ConclusionA multivariate model was derived and validated as an accurate tool for estimating the pretest probability of CAD in patients with acute chest pain.

BackgroundThe incremental prognostic value of plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) in relation to GRACE score has not been established in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-ST segment elevation.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that CRP measurements at admission increases the prognostic value of GRACE score in patients with ACS.MethodsA total of 290 subjects, consecutively admitted for ACS, with plasma material obtained upon admission CRP measurement using a high-sensitivity method (nephelometry) were studied. Cardiovascular outcomes during hospitalization were defined by the combination of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal refractory angina.ResultsThe incidence of cardiovascular events during hospitalization was 15% (18 deaths, 11 myocardial infarctions, 13 angina episodes) with CRP showing C-statistics of 0.60 (95% CI = 0.51-0.70, p = 0.034) in predicting these outcomes. After adjustment for the GRACE score, elevated CRP (defined as the best cutoff point) tended to be associated with hospital events (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 0.92 to 3.88, p = 0.08). However, the addition of the variable elevated CRP in the GRACE model did not result in significant increase in C-statistics, which ranged from 0.705 to 0.718 (p = 0.46). Similarly, there was no significant reclassification of risk with the addition of CRP in the predictor model (net reclassification = 5.7 %, p = 0.15).ConclusionAlthough CRP is associated with hospital outcomes, this inflammatory marker does not increase the prognostic value of the GRACE score.

BackgroundWhen performing coronary angiography in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the anatomical extent of coronary disease usually prevails in the prognostic reasoning. It has not yet been proven if clinical data should be accounted for in risk stratification together with anatomical data.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that clinical data increment the prognostic value of anatomical data in patients with ACS.MethodsPatients admitted with objective criteria for ACS and who underwent angiography during hospitalization were included. Primary outcome was defined as in-hospital cardiovascular death, and the prognostic value of the SYNTAX Score (anatomical data) was compared to that of the SYNTAX-GRACE Score, which resulted from the incorporation of the GRACE Score into the SYNTAX score. The Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) was calculated to evaluate the SYNTAX-GRACE Score ability to correctly reclassify information from the traditional SYNTAX model.ResultsThis study assessed 365 patients (mean age, 64 ± 14 years; 58% male). In-hospital cardiovascular mortality was 4.4%, and the SYNTAX Score was a predictor of that outcome with a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70 - 0.92; p < 0.001). The GRACE Score was a predictor of in-hospital cardiac death independently of the SYNTAX Score (p < 0.001, logistic regression). After incorporation into the predictive model, the GRACE Score increased the discrimination capacity of the SYNTAX Score from 0.81 to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87 - 0.96; p = 0.04).ConclusionIn patients with ACS, clinical data complement the prognostic value of coronary anatomy. Risk stratification should be based on the clinical-anatomical paradigm, rather than on angiographic data only.