4.4 Article

Value of Adding the CHA2DS2-VASc Score to the GRACE Score for Mortality Risk Prediction in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 123, 期 11, 页码 1751-1756

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.02.045

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score has been routinely used for risk stratification of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. We aimed to examine whether the addition of the CHA2DS2-VASc score to the GRACE score improves risk stratification. Included were patients with ACS who were divided into high (>140), intermediate (110< GRACE score <= 140) and low (<110) GRACE score. Each group was further divided into 3 subgroups categorized according to their CHA2DS2-VASc score: 0-1, 2-3, and >= 4. Management and Outcomes were compared for each GRACE score group and CHA2DS2-VASc score subgroups. Included 6,854 ACS patients, of them 3596 (52.5%) were classified as low risk, 1,937 (28.3%) were at intermediate risk and 1,321 (19.3%) were high-risk patients. In the intermediate risk group, patients with a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score more frequently underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization. For low risk patients, 30-day mortality rates were 0.8%, 1.5%, and 1.3% (p = 0.02), and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were 1.3%, 3%, and 2.6% (p = 0.002) for CHA2DS2-VASc score 0-1, 2-3, >= 4, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 30-day mortality rates were 2.9%, 3.4%, and 3.8% (p = 0.8), and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were 6.4%, 7.8%, and 11.2% (p = 0.01) for CHA2DS2-VASc score 0-1, 2-3, >= 4, respectively. Among patients with a GRACE score <140, each 1 point increase in the CHA2DS2-VASc score was associated with a 57% increase in 1-year mortality rates. In conclusion, the addition of the CHA2DS2-VASc score to the GRACE risk score in ACS patients improves risk stratification of patients with low and intermediate risk. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据