Evaluates the Killip pLUS scale for risk assessment in STEMI patients, suggesting improved outcomes.
Aims The Killip scale remains a fundamental tool for prognostic assessment in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to its simplicity and predictive value. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a valuable adjunct for diagnosing and predicting outcomes in heart failure (HF) and STEMI patients, even those with subclinical congestion. We created a new classification (Killip pLUS), which reclassifies Killip I and II patients into an intermediate category (Killip I pLUS) based on LUS results. This category included Killip I patients and ≥1 positive zone (≥3 B-lines) and Killip II with 0 positive zones. We aimed to evaluate this new classification by comparing it with the Killip scale and a previous LUS-based reclassification scale (LUCK scale). Methods and results Lung ultrasound was performed within 24 h of admission in a multicentre cohort of 373 patients admitted for STEMI. In-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events within one year after admission, comprising mortality or readmission for HF, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke, were analysed. When predicting in-hospital mortality, the global comparison of these three classifications was statistically significant: Killip pLUS area under the curve (AUC) 0.90 (95% CI 0.85–0.95) vs. Killip AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.73–0.96) vs. LUCK 0.83 (95% CI 0.70–0.95), P = 0.024. To predict events during follow-up, the comparison between scales was also significant: Killip pLUS 0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.85) vs. Killip 0.72 (95% CI 0.65–0.79) vs. LUCK 0.73 (95% CI 0.66–0.81), P = 0.033. Conclusion The Killip pLUS scale provides enhanced risk stratification compared to the Killip and LUCK scales while preserving simplicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carreras‐Mora et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: