Why the study?
Does combining the carotid plaque score with the ACEF score improve the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI?
Does combining the carotid plaque score with the ACEF score improve the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI?
Combining the anatomical carotid plaque score with the clinical ACEF score provides incremental prognostic value for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI.
May enhance MACE risk prediction in ACS when added to ACEF; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
AIM: To assess whether combining measurements obtained from carotid ultrasonography in addition to the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score would improve the predictive ability of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: . The endpoint of this study was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACEs), defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stoke, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: During the median 4-year follow-up, there were 121 incidents of MACEs. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis revealed that cPS ≥9.8 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.31) and ACEF score ≥1.20 (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.11-2.39) were significantly associated with MACEs, whereas cIMT was not. When the new combined risk score was calculated by multiplying the cPS by the modified ACEF score, the freedom from MACEs at 5 years was 71% and 31% for the lower and higher scores, respectively (p<0.001). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for MACEs for the ACEF score, cPS, and combined risk score were 0.65, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The cPS offers an incremental predictive value when combined to the simple ACEF score in ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakahashi et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: