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.

No abstract

No abstract