Why the study?
Does the CHA2DS2-VASc score predict acute stent thrombosis in AF-free patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does the CHA2DS2-VASc score predict acute stent thrombosis in AF-free patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
The CHA2DS2-VASc score, traditionally used for atrial fibrillation, can independently predict acute stent thrombosis in AF-free patients undergoing PCI.
CHA2DS2-VASc >2 was associated with acute stent thrombosis post-PCI without AF; hypothesis-generating and needs prospective validation before any clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: The CHA2DS2-VASc score is used to estimate thromboembolic risk in atrial fibrillation (AF). Its usefulness in predicting outcome in patients after a percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in AF-free patients who have undergone stent implantation. DESIGN: Patients were evaluated retrospectively. Among the 1371 patients, 38 presented with acute stent thrombosis (ST) and were included in the study. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated before percutaneous coronary intervention and the association between the score and stent thrombosis was investigated. RESULTS: The patients were grouped into ST (+) and ST (-). The average CHA2DS2-VASc score for the ST (+) group was 3.79, whereas that for the ST (-) group was 2.16 (P<0.001). A direct correlation was observed between CHA2DS2-VASc scores and the rate of ST. When patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of greater than 2 were compared with those with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of up to 2, the higher score had a higher frequency of ST (P<0.001) and multivariate analysis identified the CHA2DS2-VASc score as an independent predictor of acute ST. CONCLUSION: A CHA2DS2-VASc score of greater than 2 was found to be an independent predictor for incidence of ST. The role of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting ST has not been investigated earlier in an AF-free population and our study is the first to explore this aspect.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ünal et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: