ArticleOpen heart2025
Performance of the GRACE and the ACTION risk model in the prediction of in-hospital mortality: external validation, model revision and updating in the Thai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal validation is crucial before implementing a risk score model in clinical practice. This study examined the performance of Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) Registry-Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) (ACTION Registry-GWTG) Risk Score (AR-G RS) using the Thai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry (TPCIR).
methodsIncluded in this study were 11 455 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between November 2015 and May 2018. GRACE and AR-G RS models were externally validated, revised and updated using discrimination (C-statistic score) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) indexes). Clinical predictors were selected stepwise from the multivariate analysis to evaluate the performance of each risk score in the revised and updated model.
resultsIn-hospital mortality was 4.4%. GRACE and AR-G RS demonstrated good discrimination for in-hospital mortality (C-statistics 0.8957 and 0.8823, respectively) with optimal calibration (HL, p=0.036 and 0.006, respectively) and penalty rates of 0.005 and 0.006, respectively. The updated model significantly improved the discrimination performance compared with the original GRACE and AR-G RS models, with a C-statistic of 0.9118 and a penalty of 0.006.
conclusionGRACE and AR-G RS maintained a good performance in TPCIR. Based on routine PCI practice, we demonstrated that the updated model could improve the accuracy of GRACE and AR-G RS in predicting in-hospital mortality among patients with ACS who underwent PCI.
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.