ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Prognostic value of GRACE and EDACS scores in non-STEMI patients presenting to the emergency department.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study primarily aimed to evaluate the association of EDACS and GRACE scores with angiographically significant coronary lesions in patients presenting with NSTEMI. The secondary objective was to assess their relationship with 30-day mortality. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included adults diagnosed with NSTEMI between January 2022 and December 2024. Demographic and clinical characteristics, GRACE and EDACS scores, angiographic findings, and 30-day mortality were obtained from electronic hospital records. Significant coronary lesions were defined as ≥70 % stenosis or the need for stent placement. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square, logistic regression, and ROC analyses. Results: Among 332 patients, both GRACE and EDACS scores were significantly higher in non-survivors. GRACE high-risk classification was strongly associated with mortality, whilst EDACS (≥16) showed a non-significant trend. EDACS demonstrated superior discriminatory ability for significant coronary lesions, whereas GRACE was more closely associated with mortality risk. An EDACS cut-off >12.5 yielded 87.7 % sensitivity and 40.0 % specificity. Logistic regression identified male sex, hypercholesterolaemia, EDACS ≥16, and systolic blood pressure as independent predictors of significant lesions. Conclusions: GRACE predicted mortality, whereas EDACS better identified significant coronary lesions; combined use showed marginal improvement in model fit but did not significantly enhance discriminatory performance.
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.