Why the study?
To validate the GRACE risk score and assess the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with ACS.
Does the GRACE risk score accurately predict in-hospital and 1-year mortality in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome, and is guideline-recommended care delivered appropriately according to risk?
Does the GRACE risk score accurately predict in-hospital and 1-year mortality in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome, and is guideline-recommended care delivered appropriately according to risk?
The GRACE risk score maintains good discriminative ability for mortality in contemporary ACS patients but overestimates absolute risk, while a risk-treatment paradox persists where higher-risk patients are less likely to receive optimal guideline-directed care.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
GRACE retains predictive value in contemporary ACS; extends validation data but leaves open paradox mitigation effects.
OBJECTIVES: To validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Data from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined. RESULTS: Discriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sangen et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: