H-Index
79
Scimago Lab
powered by Scopus
JCR
Clarivate
Analytics
12%
Acceptance
Rate
call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon-Fri 10 am - 2 pm EST

Logo

Medical Science Monitor Basic Research
AmJCaseRep

Annals
ISI-Home

eISSN: 1643-3750

Comparison of Prognostic Value Among 4 Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS (CCC-ACS) Project

Jieleng Huang, Xuebiao Wei, Yu Wang, Mei Jiang, Yingwen Lin, Zedazhong Su, Peng Ran, Yingling Zhou, Jiyan Chen, Danqing Yu

The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland)

Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e928863

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.928863

Available online: 2020-12-30

Published: 2021-03-01


#928863

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk assessment and prospective stratification are of great importance for treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the optimal risk evaluation systems for predicting different type of ACS adverse events in Chinese population have not been established.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our data were derived from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS (CCC-ACS) Project, a multicenter registry program. We incorporated data on 44 750 patients in the study. We compared the performance of the following 4 different risk score systems with regard to prediction of in-hospital adverse events: the Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score system; the age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) risk score system, and its modified version (AGEF), and the Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome (C-ACS) risk assessment system.
RESULTS: Admission AGEF risk score was a better prognosis index of potential for in-hospital mortality for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) than GRACE risk score (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.819, P=0.012), ACEF (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.827, P=0.014), C-ACS (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.767, P<0.001). In patients with non-ST segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), there was no statistically significant difference between the GRACE risk scale and AGEF (AUC: 0.853 vs 0.832, P=0.140) for in-hospital death.
CONCLUSIONS: AGEF risk score showed a non-inferior utility compared with the other 3 scoring systems in estimating in-hospital mortality in ACS patients.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention, Prognosis, Risk Assessment



Back