GRACE and TIMI risk scores but not stress imaging predict long-term cardiovascular follow-up in patients with chest pain after a rule-out protocol

Indirect comparison of TIMI, HEART and GRACE for predicting major cardiovascular events in patients admitted to the emergency department with acute chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the predictive values of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI); History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) and Global Registry in Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scoring systems for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in acute chest pain (ACP) patients admitted to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from their inception to June 2020; we compared the following parameters: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity and specificity for TIMI, HEART and GRACE were 0.95 and 0.36, 0.96 and 0.50, and 0.78 and 0.56, respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR for TIMI, HEART and GRACE were 1.49 and 0.13, 1.94 and 0.08, and 1.77 and 0.40, respectively. The pooled DOR for TIMI, HEART and GRACE was 9.18, 17.92 and 4.00, respectively. The AUC for TIMI, HEART and GRACE was 0.80, 0.80 and 0.70, respectively. Finally, the results of indirect comparison suggested the superiority of values of TIMI and HEART to those of GRACE for predicting MACEs, while there were no significant differences between TIMI and HEART for predicting MACEs.

CONCLUSIONS

TIMI and HEART were superior to GRACE for predicting MACE risk in ACP patients admitted to the ED.

[Management of NSTEMI in a hospital without interventional cardiology and without use of GRACE score: Does the clinician appreciation match the GRACE score calculated retrospectively for the coronarography delay?]

PURPOSE

The management of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) remains an issue for mobidity, mortality, and an economic stake. The first aim of the study was to evaluate the additional value of the GRACE score for the compliance with the recommended times to coronary angiography in an hospital without interventional cardiology. We also analysed the in-hospital and 6-month mortality and the predictive factors of compliance for the coronarography delays.

METHODS

Retrospective monocenter cross-sectional study including consecutive patients with chest pain suggestive of a NSTEACS during 1 year. Data of the delay to coronarography were collected and GRACE score was calculated a posteriori.

RESULTS

The time to perform coronary angiography was non-compliant in 49% of cases (27 patients out of 55). The calculation of the GRACE score would have allowed correcting the delay for two patients of our cohort. Clinical appreciation, troponin elevation, ECG modifications were associated with the delay compliance. Age <75 years predisposed to recommended delays. Renal failure and history of coronaropathy were significantly associated with non compliant delays. A non-compliant delay was significantly associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the knowledge of the GRACE score had little impact on the timing of coronary angiography. However, as a predictor of mid and long term mortality, GRACE score remains SCA ST+ useful to intensify surveillance of high-risk patients.

Comparison of TIMI and Gensini score in patients admitted to the emergency department with chest pain, who underwent coronary angiography

Background

In patients admitted to the emergency department with complaints of chest pain and unstable angina pectoris, ST-elevation MI scoring is done according to risk factors used to calculate risks of urgent revascularization, MI, and death within 14 days. For this calculation, the most widely used scoring system is TIMI risk score.

Materila/Methods

In this prospective, cross-sectional descriptive study, we evaluated and compared the effectiveness of TIMI and Gensini scores of patients with chest pain who were admitted to Hacettepe University Hospitals Emergency Department between March 2011 and September 2011 and who underwent coronary angiography.

Results

The mean (range) age of 165 patients was 62 (31–88) years. Moderate correlation between TIMI and Gensini scores was detected (mean values of Gensini score for TIMI 1 is 53.50, for TIMI 2 it is 52.09, for TIMI 3 it is 102.77, for TIMI 4 it is 113.70, and for TIMI 5 it is 115.43). There was also a positive correlation between TIMI score and the results.

Conclusions

TIMI risk stratification score is safe and easy to use for rapid assessment of mortality and MI risk, despite its low possibility of predicting the outcome.

Use of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score to predict bleeding complications in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) is a prognostic score developed for managing the high risk of cardiac events immediately after unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI). In Asian populations that have a higher rate of bleeding complications, data about TIMI score are lacking. Using a Japanese multicenter registry, we investigated the impact of utilizing TIMI score in UA/NSTEMI patients, focusing on bleeding complications. The TIMI score was calculated for 587 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for UA/NSTEMI (2008-2010). They were classified into low-risk (TIMI score 0-2, N = 268, 45.6 %), intermediate-risk (TIMI score 3-4, N = 264, 45.0 %) and high-risk (TIMI score 5-7, N = 55, 9.4 %) groups; patient characteristics for each group were statistically analyzed. The patients in the higher TIMI score group were older (p < 0.001), had lower GFR (p = 0.021) and hemoglobin level after PCI (p < 0.001), and severe coronary disease pattern (p = 0.014 and p = 0.023, respectively, for left main and three-vessel disease). The TIMI score was significantly associated with requirement of blood transfusion (low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups: 1.1, 4.2, and 7.3 %, respectively; p = 0.021), and the incidence of access site bleeding (1.1, 2.7, and 5.5 %, p = 0.112). The TIMI score might aid in subjectively quantifying the risk of in-hospital complication rates such as access site bleeding.