ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2019
Application of Risks Scores in Acute Coronary Syndromes. How Does ProACS Hold Up Against Other Risks Scores?
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guideline for Chronic Coronary Syndrome - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Comparison between Five Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Surgical Revascularization during the Index Hospitalization.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Contribution of high-technology procedures to public healthcare expenditures: the case of ischemic heart disease in Portugal, 2002-2015.International journal of health economics and management · 2024Article
- Is ProACS Score Just another Risk Stratification Score, or is it Ready for Implementation in Clinical Practice?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedErratum.2019
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple risk scores (RS) are approved in the prediction of worse prognosis in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Recently, the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology has proposed the ProACS RS.
objectiveApplication of several validated RS, as well as ProACS in patients, admitted for ACS. Evaluation of each RS's performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of all-cause mortality or non-fatal ACS at one-year follow-up and compare them to the ProACS RS.
methodsA retrospective study of ACS was performed. The following RS were applied: GRACE, ACTION Registry-GWTG, PURSUIT, TIMI, EMMACE, SRI, CHA2DS2-VASc-HS, C-ACS and ProACS. ROC Curves were created to determine the predictive power for each RS and then were directly compared to ProACS.
resultsThe ProACS, ACTION Registry-GWTG and GRACE showed a c-statistics of 0.908, 0.904 and 0.890 for predicting in-hospital mortality, respectively, performing better in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The other RS performed satisfactorily, with c-statistics over 0.750, apart from the CHA2DS2-VASc-HS and C-ACS which underperformed. All RS underperformed in predicting worse long-term prognosis revealing c-statistics under 0.700.
conclusionProACS is an easily obtained risk score for early stratification of in-hospital mortality. When evaluating all RS, the ProACS, ACTION Registry-GWTG and GRACE RS showed the best performance, demonstrating high capability of predicting a worse prognosis. ProACS was able to demonstrate statistically significant superiority when compared to almost all RS. Thus, the ProACS has showed that it is able to combine simplicity in the calculation of the score with good performance in predicting a worse prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.