Why the study?
Do GRACE and TIMI scores predict the extent of coronary artery disease in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Do GRACE and TIMI scores predict the extent of coronary artery disease in patients with NSTE-ACS?
GRACE and TIMI scores correlate moderately with the extent of coronary disease in NSTE-ACS patients, predicting obstructive but not severe CAD.
GRACE/TIMI scores may aid obstructive CAD identification in NSTE-ACS; leaves open extent prediction and clinical utility pending validation.
Introduction The GRACE and TIMI scores have been well validated for assessment of prognosis in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, their value in predicting coronary artery disease (CAD) has been little studied. We aimed to assess the relationship between these scores and the extent of coronary disease. Methods We analyzed 238 consecutive patients admitted for NSTE-ACS and undergoing a coronary angiogram during hospitalization. The severity of CAD was assessed using the SYNTAX score. Obstructive CAD was defined as ≥50% stenosis in the left main or ≥70% stenosis in other vessels. Severe CAD was defined as a SYNTAX score >32. The Pearson test was used to assess the correlation between scores. Results The SYNTAX score was higher in patients at high risk (GRACE score: p<0.001 and TIMI score: p=0.001). Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between the GRACE and SYNTAX scores (r=0.23, p<0.001) as well as between TIMI and SYNTAX (r=0.2, p=0.002). Both clinical scores can predict obstructive CAD moderately well (area under the curve [AUC] for GRACE score: 0.599, p=0.015; TIMI score: AUC 0.639, p=0.001) but not severe disease. A GRACE score of 120 and a TIMI score of 2 were predictive of obstructive CAD with, respectively, a sensitivity of 57% and 75.7% and a specificity of 61.8% and 47.9%. Conclusion The GRACE and TIMI scores correlate moderately with the extent of coronary disease assessed by the SYNTAX score. They can predict obstructive CAD but not severe disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammami et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: