Validation of Two US Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Single-Center Portuguese Population of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.

External Validation of the ProACS Score for Risk Stratification of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION: The ProACS risk score is an early and simple risk stratification score developed for all-cause in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) from a Portuguese nationwide ACS registry. Our center only recently participated in the registry and was not included in the cohort used for developing the score. Our objective was to perform an external validation of this risk score for short- and long-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to our center with ACS were included. Demographic and admission characteristics, as well as treatment and outcome data were collected. The ProACS risk score variables are age (≥72 years), systolic blood pressure (≤116 mmHg), Killip class (2/3 or 4) and ST-segment elevation. We calculated ProACS, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome risk score (C-ACS) risk scores for each patient. RESULTS: A total of 3170 patients were included, with a mean age of 64±13 years, 62% with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 5.7% and 10.3% at one-year follow-up. The ProACS risk score showed good discriminative ability for all considered outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.75) and a good fit, similar to C-ACS, but lower than the GRACE risk score and slightly lower than in the original development cohort. The ProACS risk score provided good differentiation between patients at low, intermediate and high mortality risk in both short- and long-term follow-up (p<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The ProACS score is valid in external cohorts for risk stratification for ACS. It can be applied very early, at the first medical contact, but should subsequently be complemented by the GRACE risk score.