Why the study?
Most risk scores are used for long-term mortality assessment in STEMI, but data directly comparing their model performances remain lacking.
Which of five scoring systems best predicts long-term mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI?
Observational (n=1,689)
No
Which of five scoring systems best predicts long-term mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI?
Effect estimate: HR 9.13 (95% CI 4.02-20.7)
p-value: p=<0.001
The mACEF score appears to be the most clinically useful among five evaluated scoring systems for predicting long-term mortality in STEMI patients undergoing PCI.
Introduction: Although most of the scoring systems are used for long-term mortality assessment in STelevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there is still lack of data comparing model performances. In this study, it was aimed to compare five scoring systems for predicting long-term mortality in patients presented with STEMI. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective observational study consisting of 1689 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent PCI between 2009 and 2013. Patient data was obtained from the electronic data base of the hospital. Each patients’ mortality risk was assessed with five different risk scores and recorded. Results: A total of 1689 patients with STEMI were included into the study. Median follow-up time was one year. Risk scores were calculated for each patient. Although similar statistical significance was presented among all scores, modified age, creatinine clearance, and ejection fraction score (mACEF) were demonstrated to be more significant than relevant scoring systems in clinical respect. Conclusion: Among five scores, the mACEF score was demonstrated to be the most significant model in clinical respect for the prediction of mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özkalaycı et al. (2023) conducted an observational in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (n=1,689). mACEF score vs. CADILLAC, PAMI, TIMI, and TRI scores was evaluated on Time to all-cause mortality (HR 9.13, 95% CI 4.02-20.7, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: