Why the study?
Patients who survive myocardial infarction remain at risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, warranting risk stratification using the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention.
Does the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) reliably stratify risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in post-MI patients?
Does the TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) reliably stratify risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in post-MI patients?
The TIMI Risk Score for Secondary Prevention effectively stratifies real-world post-MI patients for risk of recurrent cardiovascular events.
TRS 2°P stratifies recurrent event risk in post-MI patients; extends prior validation but remains hypothesis-generating.
BACKGROUND: Patients who survive myocardial infarction (MI) are at risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events. This study stratified post-MI patients for risk of recurrent CV events using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an observational study that applied TRS 2°P to a consecutive cohort of post-MI patients. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of CV death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal ischemic stroke. A total of 1,688 post-MI patients (70.3±13.6 years; male, 63.1%) were enrolled. After a mean follow-up of 41.5±34.4 months, 405 patients (24.0%) had developed a primary outcome (9.3%/year) consisting of 278 CV deaths, 134 non-fatal MI, and 33 non-fatal strokes. TRS 2°P was strongly associated with the primary outcome. The annual incidence of primary composite endpoint for patients with TRS 2°P 0 was 1.0%, and increased progressively to 39.9% for those with TRS 2°P ≥6 (HR, 27.6; 95% CI: 9.87-77.39, P<0.001). The diagnostic sensitivity of TRS 2°P for the primary composite endpoint was 76.3% (95% CI: 72.1-80.5%). Similar associations were also observed between TRS 2°P and CV death and non-fatal MI, but not non-fatal ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: TRS 2°P reliably stratified post-MI patients for risk of future CV events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: