Why the study?
Does the SYNTAX score II provide better predictive performance for long-term mortality compared to other risk scores in patients with complex CAD undergoing PCI?
Does the SYNTAX score II provide better predictive performance for long-term mortality compared to other risk scores in patients with complex CAD undergoing PCI?
The SYNTAX score II provides superior long-term mortality prediction compared to other anatomical and clinical risk scores in patients with complex CAD undergoing PCI.
SSII may aid mortality prediction in complex CAD PCI; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
AIMS: Three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease (CAD) have important prognostic implications. Consequently, numerous risk scores have been developed to stratify patients with complex CAD. The aim of the present study was to compare the predictive performance of six risk scores for occurrence of fouryear all-cause mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: From March 2008 to December 2012, 348 consecutive patients with complex CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a tertiary centre in São Paulo, Brazil, were analysed. Four-year mortality was assessed. The scores compared were: baseline SYNTAX score (SS), residual SYNTAX score (rSS), ACEF score, clinical SYNTAX score (cSS), SYNTAX revascularisation index (SRI) and SYNTAX score II (SSII). SSII had the best predictive performance, AUC 0.82, Brier score 0.10, surpassing all the other scores for long-term mortality prediction. Moreover, SSII discriminated well PCI patients in risk groups with p<0.01 for four-year all-cause mortality. The ACEF score (AUC 0.77) and the cSS (AUC 0.78) were significantly better than the SS (AUC 0.65), SRI (AUC 0.60) or the rSS (AUC 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with complex CAD treated by PCI, the combination of baseline clinical and angiographic factors provided better risk assessment. The SSII demonstrated the most precise predictive performance for long-term mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Janella et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: