ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Short- and long-term performance of risk calculation tools for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The mortality rate of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains high. Therefore, patients with ACS should undergo early risk stratification, for which various risk calculation tools are available. However, it remains uncertain whether the predictive performance varies over time between risk calculation tools for different target periods. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of risk calculation tools in estimating short- and long-term mortality risks in patients with ACS, while considering different observation periods using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Methods: This study included 404 consecutive patients with ACS who underwent coronary angiography at our hospital from March 2017 to January 2021. The ACTION and GRACE scores for short-term risk stratification purposes and CRUSADE scores for long-term risk stratification purposes were calculated for all participants. The participants were followed up for 36 months to assess mortality. Using time-dependent ROC analysis, we evaluated the area under the curve (AUC) of the ACTION, CRUSADE, and GRACE scores at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Results: Sixty-six patients died during the observation periods. The AUCs at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of the ACTION score were 0.942, 0.925, 0.889, 0.856, and 0.832; those of the CRUSADE score were 0.881, 0.883, 0.862, 0.876, and 0.862; and those of the GRACE score 0.949, 0.928, 0.888, 0.875, and 0.860, respectively. Conclusions: The ACTION and GRACE scores were excellent risk stratification tools for mortality in the short term. The prognostic performance of each risk score was almost similar in the long term, but the CRUSADE score might be a superior risk stratification tool in the longer term than 3 years.
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.