Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the value of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score in the stratification of ischemic risk.
Does ESC-defined high ischemic risk predict MACE more effectively than the DAPT score in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with DAPT?
Observational (n=489)
No
Does ESC-defined high ischemic risk predict MACE more effectively than the DAPT score in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with DAPT?
The 2020 ESC ischemic risk criteria effectively stratify MACE risk in real-world ACS patients on DAPT, significantly outperforming the DAPT score.
ESC high-risk criteria were associated with higher MACE in ACS on DAPT; supports ESC stratification in real-world data but leaves open prospective validation versus DAPT score.
Purpose: The values of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score in the stratification of ischemic risk were assessed in this study. Methods: A total of 489 patients with acute coronary syndrome who received DAPT at discharge between June 2020 and August 2020 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization, all-cause death, or ischemic stroke during a 27-month follow-up period. Results: Patients with ESC-defined high-risk showed a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.78-4.25), all-cause death (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.14-5.43), and recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization (HR 2.80, 95% CI 1.57-4.99) than those with ESC-defined low/medium-risk during follow-up. The results of landmark analysis showed that patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR 2.80,95 CI% 1.57-4.97), recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization (HR 3.19,95 CI% 1.47-6.93) within one year, and a higher risk of MACE (HR 2.69,95 CI% 1.38-5.23) after one year. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between patients with a DAPT score ≥2 and a DAPT score <2. The C-indices of ESC criteria and DAPT score for prediction of MACE were 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.70) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.48-0.61), respectively. The predictive value of ESC criteria for MACE was better than the DAPT score according to the DeLong test (z-statistic=2.30, P=0.020). Conclusion: Patients with ESC-defined high-risk had a higher risk of MACE compared to those with ESC-defined low/medium-risk. The discriminant ability of the ESC criteria was better than the DAPT score for MACE. The ESC criteria demonstrated moderate discriminatory capacity of MACE in ACS patients treated with DAPT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=489). ESC-defined high thrombotic risk vs. ESC-defined low/moderate thrombotic risk was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization, all-cause death, or ischemic stroke) (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.78-4.25, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: