Background:
Our recently developed
Methods: CS was calculated in 1018 consecutive AMI patients enrolled in a retrospective registry. CCS was calculated by multiplying CS by the ACEF I score (age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction). Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 4-year-follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
Results: Over a 4-year follow-up period, both scores were independent predictors of clinical outcomes after adjustment for a broad spectrum of risk factors. Areas-under-the-curve (AUCs) for CS and CCS were 0.72(0.68-0.75) and 0.75(0.71-0.78) for MACEs; 0.68(0.63-0.73) and 0.78(0.74-0.83) for all-cause death; 0.73(0.68-0.79) and 0.83(0.79-0.88) for cardiac death; and 0.69(0.64-0.73) and 0.75(0.7-0.79) for myocardial infarction; and 0.66(0.61-0.7) and 0.63(0.58-0.68) for revascularization, respectively. CCS performed better than CS in terms of the above-mentioned outcome predictions, as confirmed by the net reclassification and integrated discrimination indices.
Conclusions: CCS was better than CS to be able to risk-stratify long-term outcomes in AMI patients presenting >12 h after symptom onset. These findings have indicated that both anatomic and clinical variables should be considered in decision-making on management of patients with AMI presenting later.
Keywords: Angiographic scoring; clinical variables; coronary artery disease; prognosis.