Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on April 16, 2007
European Heart Journal 2007 28(9):1072-1078; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/9/1072    most recent
ehm004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yan, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by Goodman, S. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yan, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by Goodman, S. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better

Andrew T. Yan1,2, Raymond T. Yan1,2, Mary Tan1,2, Amparo Casanova1,2, Marino Labinaz3, Kumar Sridhar4, David H. Fitchett1,2, Anatoly Langer1,2 and Shaun G. Goodman1,2,*

1 Canadian Heart Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Room 6-034 Queen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1W8
3 University of Ottawa Heart Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
4 London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada

Received 7 November 2006; revised 15 January 2007; accepted 9 February 2007; online publish-ahead-of-print 16 April 2007.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 416 864 5722; fax: +1 416 864 5407. E-mail address: goodmans{at}smh.toronto.on.ca

See page 1045 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm084)

Aims: Our objectives were (i) to compare the discriminatory performance of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS), Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy risk score (PURSUIT RS), and Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events risk score (GRACE RS) for in-hospital and 1 year mortality across the broad spectrum of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and (ii) to determine their incremental prognostic utility beyond overall risk assessment by physicians.

Methods and results: We calculated the TIMI RS, PURSUIT RS, and GRACE RS for 1728 patients with non-ST-elevation ACS in the prospective, multicentre, Canadian ACS II Registry. Discriminatory performance was measured by the c-statistic (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve) and compared by the method described by DeLong. TIMI RS, PURSUIT RS, and GRACE RS all demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital death (c-statistics = 0.68, 0.80, 0.81, respectively, all P < 0.001) and 1 year mortality (c-statistics = 0.69, 0.77, 0.79, respectively, all P < 0.0001). However, PURSUIT RS and GRACE RS performed significantly better than the TIMI RS in predicting in-hospital (P = 0.036 and 0.02, respectively) and 1 year (P = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively) outcomes. In multivariable analysis adjusting for the use of in-hospital revascularization, stratification by tertiles of risk scores (into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups) furnished independent and greater prognostic information compared with risk assessment by treating physicians for 1 year outcome.

Conclusion: Compared with TIMI RS, both PURSUIT RS and GRACE RS allow better discrimination for in-hospital and 1 year mortality in patients presenting with a wide range of ACS. All three risk scores confer additional important prognostic value beyond global risk assessment by physicians. These validated risk scores may refine risk stratification, thereby improving patient care in routine clinical practice.

Key Words: Acute coronary syndromes • Risk scores • Risk stratification • Prognosis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

Barriers to clinical risk scores adoption
Olivia Manfrini and Raffaele Bugiardini
EHJ 2007 28: 1045-1046. [Extract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
C. H. Lee, M. Tan, A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, D. Fitchett, E. A. Grima, A. Langer, S. G. Goodman, and for the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) Re
Use of Cardiac Catheterization for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes According to Initial Risk: Reasons Why Physicians Choose Not to Refer Their Patients
Arch Intern Med, February 11, 2008; 168(3): 291 - 296.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, and S. G. Goodman
Are acute coronary syndromes risk models too complex? reply
Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2007; 28(17): 2176 - 2177.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
C. P. Gale, S. O. Manda, and A. S. Hall
Are acute coronary syndromes risk models too complex?
Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2007; 28(17): 2175 - 2176.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.