Why the study?
Does the sex-specific IMACE risk score effectively stratify 1-year to 3-year MACE risk in post-myocardial infarction patients?
Does the sex-specific IMACE risk score effectively stratify 1-year to 3-year MACE risk in post-myocardial infarction patients?
The sex-specific IMACE risk score, utilizing routine laboratory values and age, effectively stratifies the risk of 1- to 3-year MACE in post-MI patients, providing a clinically feasible tool for personalized care.
May aid sex-specific post-MI stratification with routine labs; leaves open outcome improvement in prospective trials.
Objective: Post-myocardial infarction (MI) care is crucial to preventing recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but can be complicated to personalise. A tool is needed that effectively stratifies risk of cardiovascular (CV) events 1-3 years after MI but is also clinically usable. Methods: ) were studied. Cox regression derived sex-specific Intermountain Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (IMACE) risk scores for the composite of 1-year to 3-year MACE (CV death, MI or stroke). Derivation was performed in 70% of subjects (n=1342 women; 3047 men), with validation in the other 30% (n=576 women; 1290 men). Secondary validations were also performed. Results: In women, predictors of CV events were glucose, creatinine, haemoglobin, platelet count, red cell distribution width (RDW), age and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP); among men, they were potassium, glucose, blood urea nitrogen, haematocrit, white blood cell count, RDW, mean platelet volume, age and BNP. In the primary validation, in women, IMACE ranged from 0 to 11 (maximum possible: 12) and had HR=1.44 per +1 score (95% CI 1.29 to 1.61; P<0.001); men had IMACE range 0-14 (maximum: 16) and HR=1.29 per +1 score (95% CI 1.20 to 1.38; P<0.001). IMACE ≥5 in women (≥6 in men) showed strikingly higher MACE risk. Conclusions: Sex-specific risk scores strongly stratified 1-year to 3-year post-MI MACE risk. IMACE is an inexpensive, dynamic, electronically delivered tool for evaluating and better managing post-MI patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horne et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: