Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): validation study for vascular dementia

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a brief instrument developed for the screening of milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the MMSE. The aim of the present study was to validate the MoCA as well as its short version, which was proposed by the NINDS-CSN VCI Harmonization Standards for screening Vascular Dementia (VaD) patients. The results, based on a homogeneous sample of 34 VaD patients, indicate that the MoCA is a psychometrically valid and reliable instrument for cognitive screening in VaD patients, showing excellent discriminant validity. Both the full and short versions of the MoCA had excellent diagnostic accuracy in discriminating VaD patients, exhibiting an area under curve (AUC) higher than the MMSE [AUC(MoCA full version) = .950; 95% IC = .868-.988; AUC(MoCA short version) = .936; 95% IC = .849-.981; AUC(MMSE) = .860; 95% IC = .754-.932]. With a cutoff below 17 on the MoCA full version and 8 on the short version, the results for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and classification accuracy were superior compared to the MMSE. In conclusion, both versions of the MoCA are valid, reliable, sensitive and accurate screening instruments for VaD patients.

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.