The TIMI Risk Score successfully stratified risk in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes, identifying a subgroup with normal CK-MB that derived significant benefit from tirofiban (RR 0.73, P=0.027).
Observational (n=1,915)
Effect estimate: RR 0.73
p-value: p=0.027
AIMS: We evaluated the TIMI Risk Score for Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction for predicting clinical outcomes and the efficacy of tirofiban in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Developed in TIMI 11B, the risk score is calculated as the sum of seven presenting characteristics (age > or =65 years, > or =3 cardiac risk factors, documented coronary disease, recent severe angina, ST deviation > or =0.5 mm, elevated cardiac markers, prior aspirin use). The risk score was validated in the PRISM-PLUS database (n=1915) and tested for interaction with the efficacy of tirofiban+heparin vs heparin alone. The risk score revealed an increasing gradient of risk for death, myocardial infarction or recurrent ischaemia at 14 days ranging from 7.7-30.5% (P or =4 derived a greater relative risk reduction with tirofiban (P((Interaction))=0.025). Among patients with normal creatine kinase myocardial bands, the risk score showed a 3.5-fold gradient of risk (P<0.001) and identified a population that derived significant benefit from tirofiban (RR 0.73, P=0.027). CONCLUSION: The TIMI Risk Score is a simple clinical tool for risk assessment that may aid in the early identification of patients who should be considered for treatment with potent antiplatelet therapy.
David A. Morrow (Fri,) conducted a observational in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (n=1,915). tirofiban + heparin vs. heparin alone was evaluated on death, myocardial infarction or recurrent ischaemia at 14 days (RR 0.73, p=0.027). The TIMI Risk Score successfully stratified risk in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes, identifying a subgroup with normal CK-MB that derived significant benefit from tirofiban (RR 0.73, P=0.027).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: