Simplifying clinical risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions: the case for the ACEF (age, creatinine, ejection fraction) score

Integrating platelet reactivity in the age, creatinine and ejection fraction score to predict clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: the PR-ACEF score

To evaluate if integrating platelet reactivity (PR) evaluation in the original age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) score could improve the diagnostic accuracy of the model in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). We enrolled patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention between 2010 and 2011. High PR was included in the model (PR-ACEF). Co-primary end points were a composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Overall, 471 patients were enrolled. Compared to the ACEF score, the PR-ACEF showed an improved diagnostic accuracy for death/MI (AUC 0.610 vs 0.670, p < 0.001) and MACE (AUC 0.572 vs 0.634, p < 0.001). These findings were confirmed using internal validation with bootstrap resampling. At 5 years, the PR-ACEF value > 1.75 was independently associated with death/MI [HR 3.51, 95% CI (1.97-6.23)] and MACE [HR 2.77, 95% CI (1.69-4.53)]. The PR-ACEF score was effective in improving the diagnostic performance of the ACEF score at the long-term follow-up.

Acute and long-term results of percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions with the dedicated Bioss Lim C stent: the Italian BIfurcation Observational Spontaneous Study (IBIOSS)

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bifurcation lesions still represents a clinical challenge. The Bioss Lim C is a dedicated device for bifurcation lesions, features a tapered shape and large cells, and thus appears as a promising adjunct to the current interventional cardiologists' armamentarium. We aimed at conducting a prospective multicenter study focusing on early and long-term results after Bioss Lim C implantation for true coronary bifurcation lesions.

METHODS

Patients with true bifurcation lesions in whom Bioss Lim C implantation was attempted were enrolled in four Italian centers. An explicit bifurcation management approach was recommended, leaving however the choice between one- vs. two-stent strategies at operator's discretion. Acute and long-term results were systematically appraised, focusing on an acute composite of complex side branch (SB) rewiring, SB pinching, or SB occlusion (primary efficacy endpoint), as well as major adverse events (MACE, i.e. death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization [TVR]), individual components of MACE, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included, with age of 67.3±10.8 years, and 40 (19.3%) women. The target lesion was located in the left main in 48 (23.2%) patients, whereas proximal reference vessel diameter was 3.69±0.48 mm, and lesion length 20.3±3.4 mm. According to the Medina classification, most patients (60 [30.9%]) had 1-1-1 lesions. Drug-eluting stent implantation in the SB was carried out in 19 (9.3%) subjects, and kissing balloon inflation was used in 67 (32.5%). The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 27 (13.0%), with side branch (SB) occlusion in two (1.0%), SB pinching in 23 (11.1%), and complex SB rewiring in six (2.9%), and was most frequent in patients with lower body mass index or dyslipidemia. After 24.1±19.5 months, MACE were adjudicated in 23 (11.1%) subjects, with death in 10 (4.8%), MI in six (2.9%), and TVR in seven (3.4%), as well as stent thrombosis in one (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports a wider adoption of the Bioss Lim C dedicated bifurcation device, thanks to the favorable acute results as well as long-term clinical outcomes, as well as its versatility for the stenting strategy provisionally or eventually adopted by operators.

Development and validation of a model integrating clinical and coronary lesion-based functional assessment for long-term risk prediction in PCI patients

OBJECTIVES

To establish a scoring system combining the ACEF score and the quantitative blood flow ratio (QFR) to improve the long-term risk prediction of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

In this population-based cohort study, a total of 46 features, including patient clinical and coronary lesion characteristics, were assessed for analysis through machine learning models. The ACEF-QFR scoring system was developed using 1263 consecutive cases of CAD patients after PCI in PANDA III trial database. The newly developed score was then validated on the other remaining 542 patients in the cohort.

RESULTS

In both the Random Forest Model and the DeepSurv Model, age, renal function (creatinine), cardiac function (LVEF) and post-PCI coronary physiological index (QFR) were identified and confirmed to be significant predictive factors for 2-year adverse cardiac events. The ACEF-QFR score was constructed based on the developmental dataset and computed as age (years)/EF (%) + 1 (if creatinine ≥ 2.0 mg/dL) + 1 (if post-PCI QFR ≤ 0.92). The performance of the ACEF-QFR scoring system was preliminarily evaluated in the developmental dataset, and then further explored in the validation dataset. The ACEF-QFR score showed superior discrimination (C-statistic = 0.651; 95% CI: 0.611-0.691, P < 0.05 versus post-PCI physiological index and other commonly used risk scores) and excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 7.070; P = 0.529) for predicting 2-year patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE). The good prognostic value of the ACEF-QFR score was further validated by multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis (adjusted HR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.18-3.04; log-rank P < 0.01) after stratified the patients into high-risk group and low-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

An improved scoring system combining clinical and coronary lesion-based functional variables (ACEF-QFR) was developed, and its ability for prognostic prediction in patients with PCI was further validated to be significantly better than the post-PCI physiological index and other commonly used risk scores.

Prognostic value of age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction risk score in patients evaluated with fractional flow reserve: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated the relationship between age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction risk score and the severity of coronary lesions detected by applying fractional flow reserve in the patient group presenting with chronic coronary syndrome. Also, we presented long-term follow-up results in patients whose age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score was evaluated by the fractional flow reserve procedure.

METHODS

This study was planned retrospectively and in two centers. For this purpose, 114 patients who met the study criteria and who underwent elective fractional flow reserve between January 2014 and January 2019 were included in the study. Age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction was calculated as age/left ventricular ejection fraction +1 (if estimated glomerular filtration rate<30 mL/min).

RESULTS

They were divided into two groups according to the cutoff value of the age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score. A total of 76 patients had an age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score of ≤1.17 (Group I) and 38 patients had an age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score of >1.17 (Group II). The number of patients with severe lesions in fractional flow reserve was significantly higher in Group II compared with Group I (60.5 vs. 32.9%, p=0.005). According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, a significant increase was observed in major adverse cardiac events and mortality during the follow-up period in the group with a high-risk score (Log Rank: 15.01, p<0.001 and Log Rank: 8.51, p=0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In light of the data we obtained from our study, we found a correlation between the severity of the lesion detected in fractional flow reserve and the age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction scores. In addition, we found that patients with high age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction scores had higher mortality and major adverse cardiac events rates during follow-up.

Predictive value of ACEF II score for adverse prognosis in patients with coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the predictive value of age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) II score for the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

A total of 445 patients with CHD who underwent PCI were consecutively enrolled. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyse the power of the ACEF II score in predicting MACCE. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were chosen for survival analysis of adverse prognosis between groups. Finally, multivariate Cox proportional risk regression analysis was used to investigate independent risk factors for MACCEs in patients with CHD after PCI.

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher incidence of MACCEs in patients with high ACEF II scores. The area under the ROC curve of ACEF II score was 0.718, suggesting it had ideal predictive value for MACCE risks. The ACEF II score had a best cut-off value of 1.461 (sensitivity 79.4%, specificity 53.7%). Survival analysis indicated that patients in the high-score group had a significantly lower cumulative MACCE-free survival rate. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that ACEF II scores ≥1.461, Gensini scores ≥61.5, age, cardiac troponin I and previous PCI were independent risk factors of MACCE in patients with CHD after PCI, while the utilisation of statins was an independent protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACEF II score has an ideal capacity for risk stratification in patients with CHD undergoing PCI and offers good predictive value for MACCE in the long term.

Application of Modern Clinical Risk Scores in the Global Assessment of Risks Related to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Everyday Medical Practice

This article presents an overview of contemporary risk assessment systems used in patients with myocardial infarction. The full range of risk scales, both recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and others published in recent years, is presented. Scales for assessing the risk of ischemia/death as well as for assessing the risk of bleeding are presented. A separate section is devoted to systems assessing the integrated risk associated with both ischemia and bleeding. In the first part of the work, each of the risk scales is described in detail, including the clinical trials/registers on the basis of which they were created, the statistical methods used to develop them, as well as the specification of their individual parameters. The next chapter presents the practical application of a given scale in the patient risk assessment process, the timing of its application on the timeline of myocardial infarction, as well as a critical assessment of its potential advantages and limitations. The last part of the work is devoted to the presentation of potential directions for the development of risk assessment systems in the future.

Predictive value of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries

BACKGROUND

Little is known about risk stratification in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). We investigated whether the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age [years]/ejection fraction [%] + 1 [if creatinine >176 μmol/L]) might predict long-term outcomes after MINOCA.

HYPOTHESIS

The ACEF score enables accurate risk prediction in patients with MINOCA.

METHODS

A total of 1179 patients with MINOCA were enrolled and divided based on their ACEF score tertile levels. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed. Discrimination was defined as the area under the curve (AUC) using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 41.7 months, patients with MINOCA with higher ACEF score tertiles had a significantly higher incidence of MACE (6.3%, 12.5%, and 23.8%, respectively; p < .001). The adjusted risk of MACE increased with the rising ACEF score tertiles (1st tertile as reference; 2nd tertile: HR 2.70, 95% CI: 1.38-5.29, p = .004; and 3rd tertile: HR 5.35, 95% CI: 2.72-10.51, p < .001). Moreover, an elevated ACEF score was closely associated with an increased risk of MACE overall (HR 4.23, 95% CI: 3.37-5.30, p < .001) and in subgroups (all p < .05). The ACEF score also yielded a good predictive value (AUC 0.79) for MACE.

CONCLUSION

Elevated ACEF scores were strongly associated with a poor prognosis after MINOCA. This simple and valid risk score may facilitate risk stratification and decision making in the population with MINOCA.

The new classification method in ACEF score is more useful in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation

Goal In this study, it was investigated whether the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score [age (years) / ejection fraction (%) +1 (if creatinine &gt;2 mg / dL)] could predict in-hospital mortality in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and its relationship with the Global Record of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score were investigated.Material and methods The study enrolled 658 NSTE-ACS patients from January 2016 to August 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ACEF score with an optimum cut-off value of 1.283 who were divided into two groups according to the ACEF score: low ACEF (≤1.283, n:382) and high ACEF (&gt;1.283, n: 276). The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Statistically accuracy was defined with area under the curve by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis.Results In total, 13 (4.71 %) patients had in-hospital mortality. The ACEF score was significantly higher in the group with higher mortality than in the group with low mortality (2.1±0.53 vs. 1.34±0.56 p=0.001). The ACEF score was positively correlated with GRACE risk score (r=0.188 p&lt;0.0001). In ROC curve analysis, the AUC of the ACEF score for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.849 (95 % CI, 0.820 to 0.876; p&lt;0.0001); sensitivity, 92.3 %; specificity, 59.2 %, and the optimum cut-off value was &gt;1.283.Conclusion The ACEF score presented excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality. We obtained an easier and more useful result by dividing the ACEF score into two groups instead of three in NSTE-ACS patients. As a simple, useful, and easily applicable risk stratification in the evaluation of an emergency event such as the ACEF score, it can significantly contribute to the identification of patients at high risk.

Fallacies and Possible Remedies of the SYNTAX Score

Quite a few studies have revealed the clinical values regarding the outcome predictions in the cohort of the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial and decision-making with the SYNTAX score. The Evaluation of Xience Everolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left-Main Revascularization (EXCEL) and Nordic-Baltic-British left main revascularization (NOBLE) studies are the largest international randomized studies so far, comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease. Unfortunately, both studies failed to validate the value of the SYNTAX score in the selection of revascularization strategies for patients with coronary artery diseases (CAD).. This scenario prompted us to reconsider the inherent fallacies of the SYNTAX score in its derivation. We pointed out eight fallacies for the SYNTAX score in this paper. A recently developed Coronary Artery Tree description and Lesion EvaluaTion (CatLet) score, available at http://www.catletscore.com, a novel angiographic scoring system, could be the remedies for the SYNTAX score.

Provisional stenting or not provisional stenting: seven critical points for bifurcations treatment with a glimpse on left main bifurcation stenting

Stenting of coronary bifurcation lesions represents a challenge for the interventional cardiologist. A bifurcation lesion could be treated with several techniques. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to decide the strategical approach at the beginning of the procedure evaluating the patient's bifurcation anatomy, the angle between main and side branch, plaque burden at the level of the carina, and size of the side branch. Although it is clear that all bifurcation's treatment techniques have each one their advantages and disadvantages, provisional stenting remains the gold-standard technique, because it leaves the possibility to switch to other technical solutions with optimal angiographic and long-term clinical results. In this review, different tips and tricks for left main and bifurcation stenting are debated.

Utility of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score in patients with type B aortic dissection undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Older age, renal and cardiac dysfunction are predictors of poor outcome in aortic dissection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of the age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) score with adverse events in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

The study enrolled 605 patients from January 2010 to July 2015, who were classified into three groups according to the tertiles of ACEF score: Tertile 1 (≤0.77, n = 204), Tertile 2 (0.77-0.96, n = 205) and Tertile 3 (>0.96, n = 196). The association between ACEF, AGEF (age, glomerular filtration rate and ejection fraction) and the updated version of the ACEF (ACEF II) score with adverse events was analyzed.

RESULTS

After a median 3.4 years follow-up, 63 (10.4%) patients died. Multivariable analysis revealed that ACEF score was independently associated with long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-6.01; p < 0.001). ACEF, AGEF and ACEF II score had similar predictive ability for both in-hospital and long-term death. The in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 1.0% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in Tertile 3. In addition, cumulative long-term mortality in Tertile 3 was significantly higher than that in Tertile 1 and 2 (Log-Rank = 23.74; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ACEF score could be served as an useful and relatively simple tool for pre-TEVAR risk stratification in TBAD patients.

Predictive value of the combination of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score and diabetes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score [age (years) /ejection fraction (%) +1 (if creatinine>176μmol/L)] could predict 1-year outcomes following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether accuracy could be improved by establishing novel ACEF-derived risk models.

METHODS

A total of 1146 patients were included. The study endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events, including all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and nonfatal stroke. Accuracy was defined with area under the curve by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

The incidence of 1-year major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular event increased with the rising age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score tertiles (4.8%, 8.4%, and 15.2%, P < 0.001 for all). Higher ACEF score was significantly associated with an increased risk of the endpoint in overall (odds ratio = 3.75, 95% confidence interval, 2.44-5.77, P < 0.001) and in subgroups (all P < 0.05). The accuracy of the ACEF score was equivalent to the other complex risk scores. The combination of ACEF, and diabetes (ACEF-diabetes score) yielded a superior discriminatory ability than the original ACEF score (increase in C-statistic from 0.67 to 0.71, P = 0.048; continuous net reclassification improvement = 51.9%, 95% confidence interval, 33.4-70.5%, P < 0.001; integrated discrimination improvement = 0.020, 95% confidence interval, 0.011-0.030, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The simplified ACEF score performed well in predicting 1-year outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The novel ACEF-diabetes score provided a better predictive value and thus may help stratify high-risk patients and potentially facilitate decision making.

Predictive value of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score in patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

This study sought to investigate the predictive value of the age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The ACEF score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction +1 [if creatinine > 176 μmol/L]) has been established in patients evaluated for coronary artery bypass surgery. Data on its predictive value in all-comer ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are scarce.

METHODS

A total of 1901 patients prospectively enrolled in the Swiss ACS Cohort were included in the analysis. Optimal ACEF score cut-off values were calculated by decision tree analysis, and patients divided into low-risk (≤1.45), intermediate-risk (>1.45 and ≤2.0), and high-risk groups (>2.0). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, clinically indicated repeat coronary revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, and transient ischemic attack/stroke.

RESULTS

One-year rates of all-cause death increased across ACEF score groups (1.6% versus 5.6% versus 23.0%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the ACEF score was related with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 3.53, 95% CI 2.90-4.31, p < 0.001), MACCE (adjusted HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.88-2.65, p < 0.001), and transient ischemic attack/stroke (adjusted HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.71-3.89, p < 0.001) at 1 year. Rates of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major and Global use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) severe bleeding paralleled the increased ischemic risk across the groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACEF score is a simple and useful risk stratification tool in patients with ACS referred for coronary revascularization.

A simple risk score in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Modified ACEF(age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) score

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate if the modified ACEF (age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) score is a predictor of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events during 1 year of follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 1632 consecutive patients who were admitted to our emergency department diagnosed with STEMI within 12 h of chest pain and treated with primary PCI. The modified ACEF score, determined with a simplified scoring system, was calculated. The patients were grouped into tertiles according to this score (group I mACEF < 1.03, group II mACEF 1.03-1.37, group III > 1.37) . The clinical and angiographic data were compared among the tertiles.

RESULTS

In patients with the highest mACEF tertile, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (1.3%, 1.8%, and 4.1% consecutively; P = 0.003), Killip class &ge; II (P < 0.001), and cardiogenic shock were more common and ejection fraction was lower (P < 0.001). Moreover, in the 1-year follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference between cardiac mortality, target vessel revascularization, stroke, reinfarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events of the groups, while the rates of stent thrombosis were similar.

CONCLUSION

The modified ACEF score is a predictor of cardiac mortality and morbidity during 1-year follow-up.

Thirty-day readmission rates after PCI in a metropolitan center in Europe: incidence and impact on prognosis

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-day readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been related to adverse prognosis, and represent one of the most investigated indicators of quality of care. These data, however, derive from non-European centers evaluating all-cause readmissions, without stratification for diagnosis.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our center from January 2009 to December 2011 were enrolled. Thirty-day readmissions related to postinfarction angina, myocardial infarction, unstable angina or heart failure were defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or heart failure rehospitalizations. Major cardiac adverse event (MACE) was the primary outcome, and its single components (death, myocardial infarction and repeated revascularization) the secondary ones.

RESULTS

A total of 1192 patients were included; among them, 53 (4.7%) were readmitted within 30 days, and 25 (2.1%) were classified as ACS/heart failure related. During hospitalization, patients with ACS/heart failure readmissions were more likely to suffer a periprocedural myocardial infarction (22 vs. 4%; P = 0.012), and to undergo PCI at 30 days (52 vs. 0.5%; P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis indicated that periprocedural myocardial infarction represented the only independent predictor of an ACS/heart failure readmission [odds ratio (OR) 4.5; 1.1-16.8; P = 0.047]. After a median follow-up of 787 days (434-1027; first and third quartiles), patients with a 30-day ACS/heart failure readmission experienced higher rates of MACE, all-cause death and myocardial infarction (64 vs. 21%, P < 0.001; 28 vs. 6%, P = 0.017; and 20 vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001, respectively). Cox multivariate analysis indicated that ACS/heart failure 30-day readmissions were independently related to an increased risk of all-cause death (OR 3.3; 1.1-8.8; P = 0.02), differently from 30-day non-ACS/heart failure readmissions (OR 3.1; 0.7-12.9; P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day readmissions after PCI in an Italian center are infrequent, and only those patients with ACS/heart failure show a detrimental impact on prognosis who have periprocedural myocardial infarction as the only independent predictor.

Validation of Scoring Systems That Predict Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery

Several risk stratification scores, based on angiographic or clinical parameters, have been developed to evaluate outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study aims to validate the predictive ability of different risk scoring systems with regard to long-term outcomes after CABG. This single-center study retrospectively re-evaluated the Synergy Between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score; EuroSCORE; age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score; modified ACEF score; clinical SYNTAX; logistic clinical SYNTAX score (logistic CSS); and Parsonnet scores for 305 patients with LMCAD who underwent CABG. The endpoints were 5-year rate of all-cause death and major adverse cardio-cerebral events (MACCEs), including cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Compared with the SYNTAX score, other scores were significantly higher in discriminative ability for all-cause death (SYNTAX vs others: P < 0.01). The EuroSCORE ≥6 showed significant outcome difference on all-cause death, CV death, MI, and MACCE (P < .01). Multivariate analysis indicated the SYNTAX score was a non-significant predictor for different outcomes. Adjusted multivariate analysis revealed that the EuroSCORE was the strongest predictor of all-cause death (hazard ratio[HR]: 1.17; P < 0.001), CV death (HR: 1.16; P < 0.001), and MACCE (HR: 1.09; P = 0.01). The ACEF score and logistic CSS were predictive factors for TVR (HR: 0.25, P = 0.03; HR: 0.85, P = 0.01). The EuroSCORE scoring system most accurately predicts all-cause death, CV death, and MACCE over 5 years, whereas low ACEF score and logistic CSS are independently associated with TVR over the 5-year period following CABG in patients with LMCAD undergoing CABG.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: pros and cons

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a mainstay in the management of symptomatic or high-risk coronary artery disease. The bulk of clinical evidence and experience underlying this fact relies, however, on relatively young patients. Indeed, few data of very limited quality are available which adequately define the risk-benefit and cost-benefit profile of coronary angioplasty and stenting in very old subjects, such as those of 90 years of age or older (i.e., nonagenarians). The aim of this review is to provide a concise, yet practical, synthesis of the available evidence on percutaneous coronary revascularization in the very elderly. The main arguments elaborated upon are to what extent we can extrapolate findings from studies including younger patients to nonagenarians, whether we should provide higher priority to prognosis or quality of life in such patients, and whether we can afford to allocate vast resources to care for such subjects in an era of financial constraints. Our review of 18 studies and 1082 patients suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention is feasible and associated with acceptable short- and long-term results in this population, which is nonetheless fraught with a high mortality risk irrespective of the revascularization procedure. Accordingly, the pros and cons of percutaneous coronary intervention should be carefully weighed when considering this treatment in nonagenarians.

Incorporating glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance by the modification of diet in renal disease equation or the Cockcroft-Gault equations to improve the global accuracy of the Age, Creatinine, Ejection Fraction [ACEF] score in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to appraise the comparative ability of different ACEF models incorporating glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance estimated by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [ACEFMDRD] or Cokcroft-Gault [ACEFCG] equations, respectively, over the original ACEF score (ACEFSrCr) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

A total of 537 patients were analyzed by different measures of discrimination, calibration and net reclassification improvement (NRI).

RESULTS

A significant gradient in all-cause mortality was consistently seen with all the models at 30 days, 1 year and 5 years. The comparison of the three models showed that the best balance in terms of discrimination and calibration for all-cause mortality was offered by the ACEFCG at 30 days, the ACEFMDRD at 1 year and similarly by the ACEFCG and ACEFMDRD at 5 years. At 30 days, the NRI was +32.9% for ACEFMDRD over ACEFSrCr and +16% for ACEFCG over ACEFSrCr. At 1 year, the NRI was 13.8% for ACEFMDRD over ACEFSrCr and -7.8% for ACEFCG over ACEFSrCr. At 5 years, the NRI was +7.7% for both the ACEFMDRD and the ACEFCG over the ACEFSrCr.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PCI, the ACEF score is associated with satisfactory early-, mid- and long-term discrimination regardless of the definition of renal function. However, incorporating glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance by the MDRD or CG formulas in the ACEF score yields superior calibration compared with the original SrCr-based equation, with the ACEFMDRD displaying superior reclassification ability over the ACEFCG and ACEFSrCr at 30 days and 1 year.