Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational study demonstrates improved prediction of adverse events in acute myocardial infarction patients, suggesting integration of clinical data.
Background The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score predicts poor prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with or without atrial fibrillation. In this observational study, we aimed to evaluate the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score by itself and extended with clinical data to predict adverse events in patients after AMI. Methods In this longitudinal observational study, we used a cohort of 955 patients hospitalised for AMI at Västmanland County Hospital, Västerås, Sweden, to derive prediction models. The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score alone and combined with clinical data (systolic blood pressure, creatinine level, ST-segment elevation and diuretic use at discharge) was analysed using Cox regression to evaluate the risk of major adverse events (MAE), defined as all-cause death or hospitalisation due to recurrent MI, heart failure or ischaemic stroke. Discriminatory performance was presented as the time-dependent area under the curve (tdAUC). The prediction models were validated in 416 patients with AMI hospitalised at Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Results During a median of 2.5 years, 287 (30.1%) patients experienced MAE. CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores of 2, 4 and 6 were associated with fourfold, ninefold and 18-fold increases in the relative risk of MAE, respectively, with a tdAUC of 0.76 at a 2-year follow-up. Extending the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score with clinical data significantly improved the prediction model (p<0.001), yielding a tdAUC of 0.81. The models performed well in the validation cohort, with satisfactory calibration and tdAUC values of 0.70–0.78. Conclusion The addition of clinical data to the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was superior to a model with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc alone in predicting adverse events in patients after AMI, and the model performed well in external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carlsson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: