Protocol for the FACE study: frailty and comorbidity in elderly patients-a multicenter, Chinese observational cohort study.

The present protocol describes an observational cohort study that was designed to propose a therapeutic scheme and formulate an individualized treatment strategy for frail elderly patients diagnosed with multiple diseases in a Chinese, multicenter setting. Over a 3-year period, we will recruit 30,000 patients from 10 hospitals and collect baseline data including patient demographic information, comorbidity characteristic, FRAIL scale, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (aCCI), relevant blood tests, the results of imaging examination, prescription of drugs, length of hospital stay, number of overall re-hospitalizations and death. Elderly patients (≥ 65 years old) with multimorbidity and receiving hospital care are eligible for this study. Data collection is being performed at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after discharge. Our primary analysis was all-cause death, readmission rate and clinical events (including emergency visits, stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction, tumor, acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, etc). The study is approved by the National Key R & D Program of China (2020YFC2004800). Data will be disseminated in manuscripts submitted to medical journals and in abstracts submitted to international geriatric conferences. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [ChiCTR2200056070].

CHA2DS2-VASc score predicts the slow flow/no-reflow phenomenon in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

ABSTRACT: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) have a higher incidence of slow-flow/no-reflow (SF-NR) phenomenon during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) than those with single vessel disease. Currently, no effective tools exist to predict the risk of SF-NR in this population. The present study aimed to evaluate whether CHA2DS2-VASc score can be used as a simple tool to predict this risk.This study consecutively included STEMI patients hospitalized in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2005 to January 2015. Among these patients, 1032 patients with MVD were finally enrolled. Patients were divided into SF-NR (+) group and SF-NR (-) group according to whether SF-NR occurred during PPCI. SF-NR was defined as the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade ≤2.There were 134 patients (13%) in the SF-NR (+) group. Compared with the SF-NR (-) group, patients in the SF-NR (+) group are elder, with lower left ventricular ejection fraction and higher CHA2DS2-VASc score. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 (odds ratio [OR], 2.148; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.389-3.320; P = .001), current smoking (OR, 1.814; 95% CI, 1.19-2.764; P = .006), atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.892; 95% CI, 1.138-7.350; P = .03), complete revascularization (OR, 2.307; 95% CI, 1.202-4.429; P = .01), and total length of stents ≥40 mm (OR, 1.482; 95% CI, 1.011-2.172; P = .04) were independent risk factors of SF-NR. The incidence of SF-NR in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 was 1.7 times higher than that in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score <3. Additionally, patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 plus ≥2 risk factors have 3 times higher incidence of SF-NR than those with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 plus 0 to 1 risk factor.CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 can be used as a simple and sensitive indicator to predict SF-NR phenomenon and guide the PPCI strategy in STEMI patients with MVD.

Prediction of gastrointestinal bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational cohort study (STROBE compliant).

Bleeding complications of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are strongly associated with adverse patient outcomes, and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common major bleeding event, especially in the early post-PCI period. Current guidelines recommend routinely conducting bleeding risk assessments. The existing tools are mainly used to evaluate the overall bleeding risk and guide the adjustment of antithrombotic strategies after 1 year. However, there are no specific tools for GIB risk assessment.Between January 2015 and June 2015, 4943 ACS patients underwent PCI were consecutively enrolled in the derivation cohort. GIB, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. A validation cohort including 1000 patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria was also established by propensity-score matching baseline characteristics. Multivariable cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to derive a risk-scoring system, and predictive variables were selected. A risk score nomogram based on the risk prediction model was created to estimate the 1-year risk of GIB.In this study, we found that the usage of clopidogrel (hazard ratio, HR: 2.52, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 1.573-4.021) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (HR: 1.863, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), history of peptic ulcers (HR: 3.601, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829) or tumor (HR: 4.884, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), and cardiac insufficiency (HR: 11.513, 95% CI: 7.282-18.202), renal insufficiency (HR: 2.010, 95% CI: 1.350-2.993), and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (HR: 4.639, 95% CI: 2.146-10.032) were independent risk factors for GIB 1 year after PCI. Based on these 7 factors, a nomogram and scoring system was established. The area under curve of risk score was 0.824 in the deviation cohort and 0.810 in the verification cohort. In both cohorts, the GIB score was significantly better than that of 3 classical bleeding scores (all P < .05).This score could well predict the risk of GIB within 1 year after PCI and could be used to guide antithrombotic strategies.

Optimal timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions is beneficial for prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease. However, the optimal timing of staged revascularization is still controversial. This study aimed to find the optimal timing of staged revascularization. METHODS: A total of 428 STEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI and staged PCI were included. According to the time interval between primary and staged PCI, patients were divided into three groups (≤ 1 week, 1-2 weeks, and 2-12 weeks after primary PCI). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal re-infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Cox regression model was used to assess the association between staged PCI timing and risk of MACE. RESULTS: During the follow-up, 119 participants had MACEs. There was statistical difference in MACE incidence among the three groups (≤ 1 week: 23.0%; 1-2 weeks: 33.0%; 2-12 weeks: 40.0%; P = 0.001). In the multivariable adjustment model, the timing interval of staged PCI ≤ 1 week and 1-2 weeks were both significantly associated with a lower risk of MACE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.24-0.65; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.93, respectively], mainly attributed to a lower risk of repeat revascularization (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.24-0.70; HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.7), compared with a strategy of 2-12 weeks later of primary PCI. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal timing of staged PCI for non-culprit vessels should be within two weeks after primary PCI for STEMI patients.

Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding scores in ACS patients undergoing PCI: insights from a cohort of 4939 patients in China.

BACKGROUND: The CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUITY-HORIZONS scores are commonly used for predicting in-hospital major bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but the homogeneous nature of these models' population limits simple extrapolation to other local population. We aimed to compare the performance of the three risk models in Chinese patients. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of the three predicting scores for predicting in-hospital major bleeding events defined by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) serious (major and minor) episodes, in a cohort of Chinese ACS patients with either non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) or ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Calibration and discrimination of the three risk models were evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and C-statistic, respectively. We compared the predictive accuracy of the risk scores by the Delong non-parametric test. RESULTS: TIMI serious bleeding rate was 1.1% overall (1.9% and 0.86% for STEMI and NSTE-ACS, respectively). The CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUTIY-HORIZONS scores showed an adequate discriminatory capacity for major bleeding: in overall patients, the C-statistic was 0.80, 0.77, and 0.70, respectively; in NSTE-ACS patients, the C-statistic was 0.73, 0.72, and 0.64, respectively; in STEMI patients, the C-statistic was 0.91, 0.92, and 0.75, respectively. The C-statistic for the ACUITY-HORIZONS model was significantly lower than those of the CRUSADE and ACTION scores for the prediction of TIMI serious bleeding in overall patients (compared with CRUSADE, z = 3.83, P = 0.02; compared with ACTION, z = 3.51, P = 0.03); in NSTE-ACS patients (compared with CRUSADE, z = 2.37, P = 0.01; compared with ACTION, z = 2.11, P = 0.04), and in STEMI patients (compared with CRUSADE, z = 2.6.77, P = 0.02; compared with ACTION, z = 7.91, P = 0.002). No differences were observed when the CRUSADE and ACTION models were compared to each other, regardless of overall patients (z = 0.68, P = 0.31) and both of ACS types (NSTE-ACS, z = 0.52, P = 0.60), and STEMI patients (z = 0.36, P = 0.74). However, the three risk scores all overestimated the absolute major bleeding risk in each risk stratification in our study. For example, the predicted rate of CRUSADE score at high risk stratification was 11.9% vs. an actual rate of 5.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE and ACTION scores had a greater calibration and discrimination for in-hospital major bleeding compared with the ACUITY-HORIZONS score in Chinese patients with ACS undergoing PCI. However, they all overestimated the bleeding risk rate for Chinese populations. Calibration of these risk scores would be useful for the generalization in Chinese populations.