Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
ACEF performed better than other risk scores in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome during long term follow-up.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simple risk stratification for a complex coronary phenotype: association of the ACEF score with coronary slow flow.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of Lung Ultrasound Combined With ACEF Score for the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Predictive Value of Age, Creatinine, and Ejection Fraction I and II Scores for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025Observational
- Adjustment of the ACEF score by the triglyceride glucose index improves the prediction of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Observational
- Short- and long-term performance of risk calculation tools for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Risk Prediction Models for Ischemic Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Prognostic value of age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction risk score in patients evaluated with fractional flow reserve: a cross-sectional study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Sex Differences in Characteristics and Outcomes among Low-Risk Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients during Long Term Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Predictive value of the age, creatinine and ejection fraction score in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bail-out tirofiban therapy.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2021Article
- Value of ACEF-II Score in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Unstable Angina.Texas Heart Institute journalArticle
- The relationship between degree of coronary artery stenosis detected by coronary computed tomography angiography and ACEF risk score in patients with chronic coronary syndrome.Annals of Saudi medicineObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk stratification of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is an important clinical method, but long-term studies on patients subjected to all-treatment strategies are lacking. Therefore, the aim was to compare several established risk scores in the all-treatment NSTE-ACS cohort during long-term follow-up.
methodsConsecutive patients (n = 276) with NSTE-ACS undergoing coronary angiography were recruited between September 2012 and May 2015. Six risk scores for all patients were calculated, namely GRACE 2.0, ACEF, SYNTAX, Clinical SYNTAX, SYNTAX II PCI and SYNTAX II CABG. The primary end-point was Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) which was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or urgent coronary revascularization.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 33 months, 64 MACE outcomes were recorded (23.2%). There was no difference between risk score categories, except in the highest risk group of ACEF and SYNTAX II PCI scores which exhibited significantly more MACE (51.6%, N = 33 and 45.3%, N = 29, P = 0.024, respectively). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis of individual variables, only age and atrial fibrillation were significant predictors for MACE (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05, P = 0.023 and HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.04-3.89, P = 0.037, respectively). Furthermore, multivariate analysis of the risk scores showed significant prediction of MACE only with ACEF score (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.36-3.44, P = 0.001). The overall performance of GRACE, SYNTAX, Clinical SYNTAX and SYNTAX II CABG was poor with AUC values of 0.596, 0.507, 0.530 and 0.582, respectively, while ACEF and SYNTAX II PCI showed the best absolute AUC values for MACE (0.630 and 0.626, respectively).
conclusionsACEF risk score showed better discrimination than other risk scores in NSTE-ACS patients undergoing all-treatment strategies over long-term follow-up and it could represent a fast and user-friendly tool to stratify NSTE-ACS patients.
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.