Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164580›Full record

Observational studyBMC geriatrics2020

Frailty assessment and risk prediction by GRACE score in older patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Atul Anand, Sarah Cudmore, Shirley Robertson, Jacqueline Stephen, Kristin Haga, Christopher J Weir, Scott A Murray, Kirsty Boyd, Julian Gunn, Javaid Iqbal and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02302014 (Randomised Trial of Early Versus Delayed Future Care Planning for Patients and Families Living With Advanced Heart Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02302014 phase2completednot on this map

Randomised Trial of Early Versus Delayed Future Care Planning for Patients and Families Living With Advanced Heart Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2013 to 2015Enrolled50ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Congestive Cardiac Failure, Palliative CareArmsPalliative Care Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Atul AnandBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Room SU.305 Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. atul.anand@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6428-4554
Sarah CudmoreDepartment of Cardiology, Edinburgh Heart Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Shirley RobertsonDepartment of Cardiology, Edinburgh Heart Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jacqueline StephenEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kristin HagaDepartment of Cardiology, Edinburgh Heart Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Scott A MurrayPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kirsty BoydPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Julian GunnSouth Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Javaid IqbalSouth Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Alasdair MacLullichGeriatric Medicine Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Susan D ShenkinGeriatric Medicine Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Keith A A FoxBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Room SU.305 Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.
Nicholas MillsBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Room SU.305 Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.
Martin A DenvirBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Room SU.305 Chancellor's Building, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/16/14/32023Chief Scientist Office PCL/18/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction after myocardial infarction is often complex in older patients. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) model includes clinical parameters and age, but not frailty. We hypothesised that frailty would enhance the prognostic properties of GRACE.

methodsWe performed a prospective observational cohort study in two independent cardiology units: the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK (primary cohort) and the South Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, Sheffield, UK (external validation). The study sample included 198 patients ≥65 years old hospitalised with type 1 myocardial infarction (primary cohort) and 96 patients ≥65 years old undergoing cardiac catheterisation for myocardial infarction (external validation). Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The GRACE 2.0 estimated risk of 12-month mortality, Charlson comorbidity index and Karnofsky disability scale were also determined for each patient.

resultsForty (20%) patients were frail (CFS ≥5). These individuals had greater comorbidity, functional impairment and a higher risk of death at 12 months (49% vs. 9% in non-frail patients, p < 0.001). The hazard of 12-month all-cause mortality nearly doubled per point increase in CFS after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.90, 95% CI 1.47-2.44, p < 0.001). The CFS had good discrimination for mortality by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (Area Under the Curve [AUC] 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.89) and enhanced the GRACE estimate (AUC 0.86 vs. 0.80 without CFS, p = 0.04). At existing GRACE thresholds, the CFS resulted in a Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) of 0.44 (95% CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.001), largely through reductions in risk estimates amongst non-frail patients. Similar findings were observed in the external validation cohort (NRI 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.69, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThe GRACE score overestimated mortality risk after myocardial infarction in these cohorts of older patients. The CFS is a simple guided frailty tool that may enhance prediction in this setting. These findings merit evaluation in larger cohorts of unselected patients.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov; NCT02302014 (November 26th 2014, retrospectively registered).

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeAgedAged, 80 and overAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsCohort StudiesFemaleFrailtyHumansMaleMyocardial InfarctionPrognosisProspective StudiesRegistriesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAcute coronary syndromeFrailtyMyocardial infarctionRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID32164580
PMCPMC7069195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.