Walking beyond the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) model in the death risk stratification during hospitalization in patients with acute coronary syndrome: what do the AR-G (ACTION [Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network] Registry and GWTG [Get With the Guidelines] Database), NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry), and EuroHeart Risk Scores Provide?

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the in-hospital prognostic values of the original and updated GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score (RS) and the AR-G (ACTION [Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network] Registry and the GWTG [Get With the Guidelines] Database) RS in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). To evaluate the utility of recalculating risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with newer RS models (NCDR [National Cardiovascular Data Registry] and EHS [EuroHeart Score] RS). BACKGROUND: Defined in 2003, GRACE is among the most popular systems of risk stratification in ACS. An updated version of GRACE has since appeared and new RS have been developed, aiming to improve risk prediction. METHODS: From 2004 to 2010, 4,497 consecutive patients admitted to a single center in Spain with an ACS were included (32.1% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 19.2% unstable angina). Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow [HL]) indexes were used to assess performance of each RS. A comparative analysis of RS designed to predict post-PCI mortality NCDR and EHS RS versus the GRACE and AR-G RS was performed in a subgroup of 1,113 consecutive patients included in the study. RESULTS: There were 265 in-hospital deaths (5.9%). Original and updated GRACE RS and the AR-G RS all demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital death (C-statistics: 0.91, 0.90 and 0.90, respectively) with optimal calibration (HL p: 0.42, 0.50, and 0.47, respectively) in all spectra of ACS, according to different managements (PCI vs. conservative) and without significant differences between the 3 different RS. In patients undergoing PCI, EHS and NCDR RS (C-statistic = 0.80 and 0.84, respectively) were not superior to GRACE RS (C-statistic = 0.91), albeit in the subgroup of patients undergoing PCI who were categorized as high risk using the GRACE RS, both EHS and NCDR have contributed to decrease the false positive rate generated by using the GRACE RS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having been developed over 8 years ago, the GRACE RS still maintains its excellent performance for predicting in-hospital risk of death among ACS patients.

Comparing the predictive validity of three contemporary bleeding risk scores in acute coronary syndrome.

AIMS: Haemorrhagic complications are strongly linked with adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Various risk scores (RS) are available to predict bleeding risk in these patients. We compared the performance of three contemporary bleeding RS in ACS. METHODS: We studied 4500 consecutive patients with ACS. We calculated the ACTION, CRUSADE, and Mehran et al. (2010) bleeding RS, and evaluated their performance for predicting their own major bleeding events and TIMI serious (major or minor) bleeding episodes, in patients with either non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTEACS) or ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, HL) and discrimination (c-statistic) for the three RS were computed and compared. RESULTS: For RS-specific major bleeding, ACTION and CRUSADE showed the best prognostic discrimination in STEMI (c=0.734 and 0.791, respectively; p=0.04), and in NSTEACS (c=0.791 and 0.810; p=0.4); being CRUSADE significantly superior to Mehran et al. in both ACS types (p<0.05). All RS performed well in patients undergoing coronary arteriography using either a radial or femoral approach (all c≥0.718); however, their discriminative capacity was modest in patients not undergoing coronary arteriography and in those previously on oral anticoagulant (all c<0.70). For TIMI serious bleeding, ACTION and CRUSADE displayed the highest c-index values in both STEMI (0.724 and 0.703, respectively; p=0.3) and NSTEACS (c=0.733 and 0.744, respectively; p=0.6); however, calibration of ACTION was poor in both ACS types (HL p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Of contemporary bleeding RS, the CRUSADE score was found to be the most accurate quantitative tool for NSTEACS and STEMI patients undergoing coronary arteriography.