Universal definition of myocardial infarction: clinical insights.

AIMS: The universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) classifies acute ischaemia into different classes according to lesion mechanism. Our aim was to perform a detailed comparison between these different types of MI in terms of baseline characteristics, management and prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: An observational retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed, including 1,000 consecutive patients admitted for type 1 (76.4%) or type 2 MI (23.6%). Type 2 MI patients were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and worse medical status at admission. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the MI groups (8.8 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.602). However, mortality during follow-up was almost 3 times higher in type 2 MIs (HR 2.75, p < 0.001). Type 2 MI was an independent all-cause mortality risk marker, adding discriminatory power to the GRACE model. Finally, important differences in traditional risk score performances (GRACE, CRUSADE) were found between both MI types. CONCLUSIONS: Several important baseline differences were found between these MI types. Regarding prognosis, long-term survival is significantly compromised in type 2 MIs, potentially translating patients' higher medical complexity and frailty. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 MI seems to have important implications in clinical practice and likely also in the results of clinical trials.

Improving risk stratification in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with combined assessment of GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is fundamental in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), enabling estimation of prognosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether the combined use of GRACE and CRUSADE risk stratification schemes in patients with myocardial infarction outperforms each of the scores individually in terms of mortality and haemorrhagic risk prediction. METHODS: Observational retrospective single-centre cohort study including 566 consecutive patients admitted for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The CRUSADE model increased GRACE discriminatory performance in predicting all-cause mortality, ascertained by Cox regression, demonstrating CRUSADE independent and additive predictive value, which was sustained throughout follow-up. The cohort was divided into four different subgroups: G1 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE<41); G2 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE≥41); G3 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE<41); G4 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE≥41). RESULTS: Outcomes and variables estimating clinical severity, such as admission Killip-Kimbal class and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, deteriorated progressively throughout the subgroups (G1 to G4). Survival analysis differentiated three risk strata (G1, lowest risk; G2 and G3, intermediate risk; G4, highest risk). The GRACE+CRUSADE model revealed higher prognostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.76) than GRACE alone (AUC 0.70) for mortality prediction, further confirmed by the integrated discrimination improvement index. Moreover, GRACE+CRUSADE combined risk assessment seemed to be valuable in delineating bleeding risk in this setting, identifying G4 as a very high-risk subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined risk stratification with GRACE and CRUSADE scores can improve the individual discriminatory power of GRACE and CRUSADE models in the prediction of all-cause mortality and bleeding. This combined assessment is a practical approach that is potentially advantageous in treatment decision-making.

Cardiovascular risk assessment of pulmonary embolism with the GRACE risk score.

Despite the existence of several risk scores, the accurate prediction of the prognosis in pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a challenge. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score has a high diagnostic performance for adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome. We aimed to assess the applicability and extend the use of the GRACE risk score to PE. A case-control study of 206 consecutive patients admitted with PE was performed. The GRACE, Geneva, Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index, Shock Index, and European Society of Cardiology risk scores were tested for the prediction of the primary end point: all-cause 30-day mortality. Comparisons between GRACE and the other risk scores were performed using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve and the integrated discrimination improvement index. All-cause 30-day mortality was observed in 18.9% of the patients. Unlike the other classifications, no adverse outcomes were observed in patients classified as low risk using the GRACE risk score (100% negative predictive value for GRACE risk score ≤113). The GRACE score showed greater discriminative performance than the Geneva score (area under the curve 0.623, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.71), Shock Index (area under the curve 0.639, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73), European Society of Cardiology (area under the curve 0.662, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.76), and Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (area under the curve 0.705, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80), although statistical significance was not reached. The integrated discrimination improvement index suggested a more appropriate risk classification with the GRACE score. In conclusion, our results have demonstrated that the GRACE risk score can accurately predict 30-day mortality in patients admitted for acute PE. Compared to previously proposed PE prediction rules, the GRACE risk score presented improved overall risk classification.