Why the study?
Risk stratification in chronic coronary syndrome is challenging, and the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention had not been evaluated in the Brazilian population.
Does the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2P) accurately predict MACE in Brazilian patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
Does the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2P) accurately predict MACE in Brazilian patients with chronic coronary syndrome?
The TRS2P score underestimates MACE risk and demonstrates poor discrimination in a Brazilian cohort of chronic coronary syndrome patients, suggesting limited clinical utility without recalibration.
TRS2P underestimates MACE with poor discrimination in Brazilian chronic coronary syndrome; leaves open need for local recalibration before clinical use.
Background Risk stratification in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients is challenging. TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2P) is a simple nine-point tool developed to predict cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemic stroke among post-MI patients. No studies have been conducted on it in the Brazilian population. Objective Validate the TRS2P score among CCS patients at a tertiary center in Brazil. Methods This is a registry-based study of patients with CCS, defined as having a previous revascularization procedure, previous MI, or ≥50% stenosis in at least one epicardial coronary artery. The primary outcome was the three-year incidence of MACE (death, MI or stroke). The predicted risk was as reported in the original derivation study. Calibration was assessed through a calibration plot and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Discrimination was evaluated through the concordance (C)-statistic. A significance level of 0.05 was adopted. Results The study sample consisted of 515 patients. There were 173 (34%) women, 75 (15%) aged over 75 years, 298 (58%) had diabetes, and 156 (30%) had chronic kidney disease. During follow-up, 126 MACE were documented. The estimated three-year incidence was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21%-28%), whereas the predicted incidence was 15%. Although higher TRS2P scores were associated with higher MACE incidence, the TRS2P risk score model underestimated MACE incidence at every strata (p < 0.01). The C-statistic was 0.64 (95% CI 0.58-0.69). Conclusion The TRS2P score identifies patients with a higher risk of cardiovascular events but it underestimated MACE and presented poor discrimination in a Brazilian CCS cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinesi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: