No abstract

Background The TIMI Score for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was created and validated specifically for this clinical scenario, while the GRACE score is generic to any type of acute coronary syndrome. Objective Between TIMI and GRACE scores, identify the one of better prognostic performance in patients with STEMI. Methods We included 152 individuals consecutively admitted for STEMI. The TIMI and GRACE scores were tested for their discriminatory ability (C-statistics) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow) in relation to hospital death. Results The TIMI score showed equal distribution of patients in the ranges of low, intermediate and high risk (39 %, 27 % and 34 %, respectively), as opposed to the GRACE Score that showed predominant distribution at low risk (80 %, 13 % and 7%, respectively). Case-fatality was 11%. The C-statistics of the TIMI score was 0.87 (95%CI = 0.76 to 0.98), similar to GRACE (0.87, 95%CI = 0.75 to 0.99) - p = 0.71. The TIMI score showed satisfactory calibration represented by χ2 = 1.4 (p = 0.92), well above the calibration of the GRACE score, which showed χ2 = 14 (p = 0.08). This calibration is reflected in the expected incidence ranges for low, intermediate and high risk, according to the TIMI score (0 %, 4.9 % and 25 %, respectively), differently to GRACE (2.4%, 25% and 73%), which featured middle range incidence inappropriately. Conclusion Although the scores show similar discriminatory capacity for hospital death, the TIMI score had better calibration than GRACE. These findings need to be validated populations of different risk profiles.

BackgroundThe ACUITY and CRUSADE scores are validated models for prediction of major bleeding events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the comparative performances of these scores are not known.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of ACUITY and CRUSADE in predicting major bleeding events during ACS.MethodsThis study included 519 patients consecutively admitted for unstable angina, non-ST-elevation or ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The scores were calculated based on admission data. We considered major bleeding events during hospitalization and not related to cardiac surgery, according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (type 3 or 5: hemodynamic instability, need for transfusion, drop in hemoglobin ≥ 3 g, and intracranial, intraocular or fatal bleeding).ResultsMajor bleeding was observed in 31 patients (23 caused by femoral puncture, 5 digestive, 3 in other sites), an incidence of 6%. While both scores were associated with bleeding, ACUITY demonstrated better C-statistics (0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 - 0.82) as compared with CRUSADE (0.62, 95% CI = 0.53 - 0.71; p = 0.04). The best performance of ACUITY was also reflected by a net reclassification improvement of + 0.19 (p = 0.02) over CRUSADE’s definition of low or high risk. Exploratory analysis suggested that the presence of the variables ‘age’ and ‘type of ACS’ in ACUITY was the main reason for its superiority.ConclusionThe ACUITY Score is a better predictor of major bleeding when compared with the CRUSADE Score in patients hospitalized for ACS.

BackgroundAn adequate door-to-balloon time (<120 minutes) is the necessary condition for the efficacy of primary angioplasty in infarction to translate into effectiveness. ObjectiveTo describe the effectiveness of a quality of care protocol in reducing the door-to-balloon time. MethodsBetween May 2010 and August 2012, all individuals undergoing primary angioplasty in our hospital were analyzed. The door time was electronically recorded at the moment the patient took a number to be evaluated in the emergency room, which occurred prior to filling the check-in forms and to the triage. The balloon time was defined as the beginning of artery opening (introduction of the first device). The first 5 months of monitoring corresponded to the period of pre-implementation of the protocol. The protocol comprised the definition of a flowchart of actions from patient arrival at the hospital, the team's awareness raising in relation to the prioritization of time, and provision of a periodic feedback on the results and possible inadequacies. ResultsA total of 50 individuals were assessed. They were divided into five groups of 10 sequential patients (one group pre-and four groups post-protocol). The door-to-balloon time regarding the 10 cases recorded before protocol implementation was 200 ± 77 minutes. After protocol implementation, there was a progressive reduction of the door-to-balloon time to 142 ± 78 minutes in the first 10 patients, then to 150 ± 50 minutes, 131 ± 37 minutes and, finally, 116 ± 29 minutes in the three sequential groups of 10 patients, respectively. Linear regression between sequential patients and the door-to-balloon time (r = - 0.41) showed a regression coefficient of - 1.74 minutes. ConclusionThe protocol implementation proved effective in the reduction of the door-to-balloon time.

BackgroundThe incremental prognostic value of plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) in relation to GRACE score has not been established in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-ST segment elevation.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that CRP measurements at admission increases the prognostic value of GRACE score in patients with ACS.MethodsA total of 290 subjects, consecutively admitted for ACS, with plasma material obtained upon admission CRP measurement using a high-sensitivity method (nephelometry) were studied. Cardiovascular outcomes during hospitalization were defined by the combination of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal refractory angina.ResultsThe incidence of cardiovascular events during hospitalization was 15% (18 deaths, 11 myocardial infarctions, 13 angina episodes) with CRP showing C-statistics of 0.60 (95% CI = 0.51-0.70, p = 0.034) in predicting these outcomes. After adjustment for the GRACE score, elevated CRP (defined as the best cutoff point) tended to be associated with hospital events (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 0.92 to 3.88, p = 0.08). However, the addition of the variable elevated CRP in the GRACE model did not result in significant increase in C-statistics, which ranged from 0.705 to 0.718 (p = 0.46). Similarly, there was no significant reclassification of risk with the addition of CRP in the predictor model (net reclassification = 5.7 %, p = 0.15).ConclusionAlthough CRP is associated with hospital outcomes, this inflammatory marker does not increase the prognostic value of the GRACE score.