Why the study?
Does the modified ACEF score predict major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Does the modified ACEF score predict major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
The modified ACEF score is a useful predictor of 1-year cardiac mortality and morbidity in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Modified ACEF score may stratify 1-year MACCE risk after STEMI PCI; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate if the modified ACEF (age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) score is a predictor of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events during 1 year of follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 1632 consecutive patients who were admitted to our emergency department diagnosed with STEMI within 12 h of chest pain and treated with primary PCI. The modified ACEF score, determined with a simplified scoring system, was calculated. The patients were grouped into tertiles according to this score (group I mACEF < 1.03, group II mACEF 1.03-1.37, group III > 1.37) . The clinical and angiographic data were compared among the tertiles. RESULTS: In patients with the highest mACEF tertile, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (1.3%, 1.8%, and 4.1% consecutively; P = 0.003), Killip class ≥ II (P < 0.001), and cardiogenic shock were more common and ejection fraction was lower (P < 0.001). Moreover, in the 1-year follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference between cardiac mortality, target vessel revascularization, stroke, reinfarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events of the groups, while the rates of stent thrombosis were similar. CONCLUSION: The modified ACEF score is a predictor of cardiac mortality and morbidity during 1-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalaycı et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: