Clinical effectiveness of the systematic use of the GRACE scoring system (in addition to clinical assessment) for ischaemic outcomes and bleeding complications in the management of NSTEMI compared with clinical assessment alone: a prospective study.

unlabelledWe assessed the interest of systematically using the GRACE scoring system (in addition to clinical assessment) for in- hospital outcomes and bleeding complications in the management of NSTEMI compared with clinical assessments alone. Multicentre, randomized study that included 572 consecutive NSTEMI patients, randomized 1:1, into group A: clinical stratification alone and group B: clinical+ GRACE score stratification.

main outcome measuresin-hospital outcomes and bleeding complications. There was no significant difference between the two groups for baseline data or for in-hospital MACE. In multivariate analysis, only a GRACE >140 (OR: 3.5, 95 % CI: 1.8-6.6, p < 0.001) and PCI (OR: 0.55, 95 % CI: 0.3-1.0; p = 0.05) were independent predictors of in-hospital MACE. The sub-analysis of group B showed that 56 patients (20 %) were given a compliance score of 0, showing that diagnostic angiography was performed later than as recommended by the guidelines. Interestingly, 91 % had a GRACE score >140, and these patients were significantly older, and were more likely to have a history of diabetes, stroke and renal failure, together with symptoms of heart failure. After multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of a lack of compliance with guideline delays were a GRACE score >140 (OR: 9.2; CI: 4.2-20.3, p < 0.001) and secondary referral from a non-PCI cardiology department (OR: 2.7; CI: 1.4-5.2, p = 0.003). In a real-world setting of patients admitted with NSTEMI, the systematic use of the GRACE scoring system at admission in the PCI centre does not improve in-hospital outcomes and bleeding complications.