首页> 外文期刊>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: Official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions >Comparison of six risk scores in patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease undergoing PCI: Competing factors influence mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization
【24h】

Comparison of six risk scores in patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease undergoing PCI: Competing factors influence mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization

机译:三联冠状动脉病变接受PCI的患者的六个风险评分比较:竞争因素影响死亡率,心肌梗塞和靶病变血运重建

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives To compare the discriminatory value of differing risk scores for predicting clinical outcomes following PCI in routine practice. Background Various risk scores predict outcomes after PCI. However, these scores consider markedly different factors, from purely anatomical (SYNTAX risk score [SRS]) to purely clinical (ACEF, modified ACEF [ACEFmod], NCDR), while other scores combine both elements (Clinical SYNTAX score [CSS], NY State Risk Score [NYSRS]). Methods Patients with triple vessel and/or LM disease with 12 month follow-up were studied from a single center PCI registry. Exclusion criteria included STEMI presentation, prior revascularization and shock. Clinical events at 12 months were compared to baseline risk scores, according to score tertiles and area under receiver-operating-characteristic curves (AUC). Results We identified 584 eligible patients (69.8±12.3yrs, 405 males). All scores were predictive of mortality, with the SRS being least predictive (AUC=0.66). The most accurate scores for mortality were the CSS and ACEF (AUC=0.76 for both: P = 0.019 and 0.08 vs. SRS, respectively). For TLR, while the SRS trended toward being positively predictive (P = 0.075), several scores trended towards a negative association, which reached significance for the NCDR (P = 0.045). The SRS and CSS were the only scores predictive of MI (both P < 0.05). No score was particularly accurate for predicting MACE (death+MI+TLR), with AUCs ranging from 0.53 (NCDR) to 0.63 (SRS). Conclusions Competing factors influence mortality, MI and TLR after PCI. An increasing burden of comorbidities is associated with mortality, whereas anatomical complexity predicts MI. By combining these outcomes to predict MACE, all scores show reduced utility.
机译:目的比较常规手术中不同风险评分对预测PCI术后临床结局的鉴别价值。背景各种风险评分可预测PCI后的结局。但是,这些分数考虑了明显不同的因素,从纯解剖学(SYNTAX风险评分[SRS])到纯临床(ACEF,改良的ACEF [ACEFmod],NCDR),而其他分数综合了这两种要素(临床SYNTAX评分[CSS],NY)州风险评分[NYSRS])。方法从单一中心PCI注册中心研究患有三支血管和/或LM疾病并随访12个月的患者。排除标准包括STEMI表现,既往血运重建和休克。根据得分三分位数和接受者操作特征曲线(AUC)下的面积,将12个月的临床事件与基线风险评分进行比较。结果我们确定了584例合格患者(69.8±12.3岁,405例男性)。所有评分均可以预测死亡率,而SRS的预测性最低(AUC = 0.66)。死亡率最准确的评分是CSS和ACEF(两者的AUC = 0.76:分别为P = 0.019和0.08 vs. SRS)。对于TLR,尽管SRS趋向于具有积极的预测性(P = 0.075),但几项评分趋向于具有负相关性,这对于NCDR而言具有重要意义(P = 0.045)。 SRS和CSS是唯一可预测MI的评分(均P <0.05)。没有分数能特别准确地预测MACE(死亡+ MI + TLR),AUC范围从0.53(NCDR)到0.63(SRS)。结论竞争因素影响PCI后的死亡率,MI和TLR。合并症的负担增加与死亡率有关,而解剖学复杂性可预测心肌梗死。通过组合这些结果来预测MACE,所有分数均显示出降低的效用。

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