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.

Prognosis following acute coronary syndromes according to prior coronary artery bypass grafting: Meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Conduct a meta-analysis to study the prognostic influence of a previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients admitted for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using electronic reference databases through January 2013 (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar and references cited in other studies). Studies in which ACS outcomes with a previous history of CABG were compared with ACS outcomes with no history of previous CABG were considered for inclusion. The main endpoints of interest were mortality and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. Data was aggregated at three follow-up times using random-effects meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included which provided 387,181 patients for analysis. Previous CABG ACS patients were older, more diabetic and had a more frequent history of a previous myocardial infarction. Pooled in-hospital mortality was higher for the previous CABG ACS patients (OR 1.22 [1.04-1.44], p<0.01, I(2) 88%). The pooled adjusted OR showed no significant differences for the two groups (adjusted OR 1.13 [0.93-1.37], p=0.22, I(2) 92%). Previous CABG ACS patient had a higher pooled 30-day mortality (OR 1.28 [1.05-1.55], p=0.02, I(2) 74%); a higher non-adjusted (OR 1.61 [1.38-1.88], p<0.01, I(2) 70%) and adjusted (adjusted OR 1.37 [1.15-1.65], p<0.01, I(2) 0%) long-term mortality. Both the in-hospital and the long-term re-infarction rates were higher for the previous CABG ACS patients. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, ACS patients with previous CABG history had a higher risk for short- and long-term adverse events.