首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Cardiology >Comparison of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Risk Score Versus the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines Risk Score to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding in Acute Coronary Syndromes
【24h】

Comparison of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Risk Score Versus the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines Risk Score to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding in Acute Coronary Syndromes

机译:急性冠状动脉事件风险评分全球登记册与不稳定型心绞痛患者能否快速风险分层的比较,早期实施ACC ​​/ AHA指南的风险评分可预测住院死亡率和急性冠脉综合征大出血

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Risk assessment plays a major role in the management of acute coronary syndrome. The aim was to compare the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress Adverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Asociation guidelines (CRUSADE) risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality and major bleeding (MB) in 1,587 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome. In-hospital deaths and bleeding complications were prospectively collected. Bleeding complications were defined according to CRUSADE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. During the hospitalization, 71 patients (4.5%) died, 37 patients (2.3%) had BARC MB and 34 patients (2.1%) had CRUSADE MB. Receiver operating characteristic curves analyses showed GRACE risk score has better discrimination capacity than CRUSADE risk score for both, mortality (0.86 vs 0.79; p = 0.018) and BARC MB (0.80 vs 0.73; p = 0.028), but similar for CRUSADE MB (0.79 vs 0.79; p = 0.921). Both scores had low discrimination for predicting MB in the elderly (>75 years) and patients with atrial fibrillation, whereas CRUSADE risk score was especially poor for predicting MB in patients with <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or those treated with new anti platelets. Reclassification analyses showed GRACE risk score was associated with a significant improvement in the predictive accuracy of CRUSADE risk score for predicting mortality (net reclassification improvement: 22.5%; p <0.001) and MB (net reclassification improvement: 17.6%; p = 0.033) but not for CRUSADE MB. In conclusion, GRACE risk score has a better predictive performance for predicting both in-hospital mortality and BARC MB. In light of these findings, we propose the GRACE score as a single score to predict these in-hospital complications. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译:风险评估在急性冠脉综合征的管理中起着重要作用。目的是比较急性冠心病事件全球注册系统(GRACE)和不稳定型心绞痛患者能否迅速进行风险分层与美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会指南(CRUSADE)风险评分的早期实施之间的表现可以预测连续1,587例急性冠脉综合征患者的住院死亡率和大出血(MB)。前瞻性收集院内死亡和出血并发症。出血并发症是根据CRUSADE和出血学术研究联合会(BARC)的标准定义的。住院期间死亡71例(4.5%),37例(2.3%)患有BARC MB,34例(2.1%)患有CRUSADE MB。接收者工作特征曲线分析显示,对于死亡率(0.86 vs 0.79; p = 0.018)和BARC MB(0.80 vs 0.73; p = 0.028),GRACE风险评分具有比CRUSADE风险评分更好的判别能力,但对于CRUSADE MB(0.79)相似vs 0.79; p = 0.921)。两项评分均无法预测老年人(> 75岁)和房颤患者的MB,而CRUSADE风险评分对于预测<60 ml / min / 1.73 m(2)的患者或接受房颤治疗的患者的MB尤其差。新的抗血小板。重新分类分析显示,GRACE风险评分与CRUSADE风险评分预测死亡率的预测准确性显着提高相关(净重新分类改善:22.5%; p <0.001)和MB(净重新分类改善:17.6%; p = 0.033),但是不适用于CRUSADE MB。总而言之,GRACE风险评分在预测院内死亡率和BARC MB方面具有更好的预测性能。根据这些发现,我们建议将GRACE评分作为单个评分来预测这些医院内并发症。 (C)2016 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号