Key result
Prognostic scoring systems (GRACE, TIMI, HEART, ACEF) showed sub-optimal performance (AUC 0.7-0.8) for predicting 1-year death and AMI in MINOCA patients, though GRACE predicted death well (AUC 0.932).
Why the study?
The prognosis of patients with MINOCA is not benign, prompting the need to validate prognostic scoring systems in this population.
Do GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores accurately predict 1-year adverse events in patients with MINOCA?
Cohort (n=250)
Do GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores accurately predict 1-year adverse events in patients with MINOCA?
While GRACE and ACEF scores accurately predict 1-year mortality in MINOCA patients, their sub-optimal performance for composite ischemic events highlights the need for MINOCA-specific risk assessment tools.
ACS scores may support but should not yet change MINOCA risk assessment; leaves open dedicated models.
Background: the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is not benign; thus, prompting the need to validate prognostic scoring systems for this population. Aim: to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores in MINOCA patients. Methods: A total of 250 MINOCA patients from January 2017 to September 2021 were included. For each patient, the four scores at admission were retrospectively calculated. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at 1-year follow-up. The ability to predict 1-year all-cause death was also tested. Results: Overall, the tested scores presented a sub-optimal performance in predicting the composite major adverse event in MINOCA patients, showing an AUC ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Among them, the GRACE score appeared to be the best in predicting all-cause death, reaching high specificity with low sensitivity. The best cut-off identified for the GRACE score was 171, higher compared to the cut-off of 140 generally applied to identify high-risk patients with obstructive AMI. When the scores were tested for prediction of 1-year all-cause death, the GRACE and the ACEF score showed very good accuracy (AUC = 0.932 and 0.828, respectively). Conclusion: the prognostic scoring tools, validated in AMI cohorts, could be useful even in MINOCA patients, although their performance appeared sub-optimal, prompting the need for risk assessment tools specific to MINOCA patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fedele et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) (n=250). GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at 1-year follow-up (AUC 0.7-0.8). Prognostic scoring systems (GRACE, TIMI, HEART, ACEF) showed sub-optimal performance (AUC 0.7-0.8) for predicting 1-year death and AMI in MINOCA patients, though GRACE predicted death well (AUC 0.932).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: