Why the study?
To develop and validate a simple risk score for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events in coronary artery disease patients using routinely available clinical variables.
A simple risk score using six routinely available clinical variables can effectively stratify patients with coronary artery disease into distinct risk categories for major adverse cardiovascular events to aid in secondary prevention.
May facilitate MACE stratification in CAD with routine variables; leaves open prospective validation and outcome impact.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a simple risk score for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients using routinely available clinical variables. DESIGN: This was a cohort study with retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: This study was conducted at a tertiary care centre in China. PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included 7182 CAD patients, randomly divided into training dataset and testing dataset in a ratio of 3:1. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of MACE (cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, stroke and revascularisation). A Cox regression model was developed on a training set to identify independent predictors. Variables were assigned points based on their β-coefficients to construct a risk score. The model was validated on a testing set. Discrimination was assessed using the concordance index (C-index) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Risk groups were defined according to the total score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 27.3 months, 487 (6.8%) MACE events occurred. Six independent predictors were identified and included in the score: age ≥65 years (three points), NT-proBNP ≥125 pg/mL (four points), HbA1c ≥7% (3 points), elevated serum creatinine (>106 µmol/L for male or >97 µmol/L for female, 4 points), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥1.8 mmol/L (two points), and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) ≥0.15 ng/mL (four points). The score stratified patients into low- (0-4 points), middle- (5-9 points), and high-risk (10-14 points) groups. In the testing set, the middle- and high-risk groups had significantly increased MACE risk compared with the low-risk group (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.29; HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.08, respectively). The model showed consistent discrimination in both training (C-index = 0.726, AUC = 0.728) and testing sets (C-index = 0.702, AUC = 0.705). CONCLUSION: A simple risk score comprising six clinical variables effectively stratified CAD patients into distinct MACE risk categories. This tool may aid in clinical decision-making and resource prioritisation in secondary prevention, pending external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: