Evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models for the stratification of undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department

Abstract

Background: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score is recommended for stratifying chest pain. However, there are six formulas used to calculate the GRACE score for different outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including death (Dth) or composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), while in hospital (IH), within 6 months after discharge (OH6m) or from admission to 6 months later (IH6m). We aimed to perform the first comprehensive evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models to predict 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: Patients with acute chest pain were consecutively recruited from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017 from the EDs of two public hospitals in China. The 30-day MACEs included death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), emergency revascularization, cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. The correlation, calibration, discrimination, reclassification and diagnostic accuracy at certain cutoff values of six GRACE models were evaluated. Comparisons with the History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores were conducted. Results: A total of 2886 patients were analyzed, with 590 (20.4%) patients experiencing outcomes. The GRACE(IHDthMI), GRACE(IH6mDthMI), GRACE(IHDth), GRACE(IH6mDth), GRACE(OH6mDth) and GRACE(OH6mDthMI) showed positive linear correlations with the actual MACE rates (r≥0.568, p<0.001). All these models had good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p≥0.073) except GRACE(IHDthMI) (p<0.001). The corresponding C-statistics were 0.83(0.81,0.84), 0.82(0.81,0.83), 0.75(0.73,0.76), 0.73(0.72,0.75), 0.72(0.70,0.73) and 0.70(0.68,0.71), respectively, first two of which were comparable to HEART (0.82, 0.80-0.83) and superior to TIMI (0.71, 0.69-0.73). With a sensitivity ≥95%, GRACE(IHDthMI) ≤81 and GRACE(IH6mDthMI) ≤79 identified 868(30%) and 821(28%) patients as low risk, respectively, which were significantly better than other GRACEs and HEART ≤3(22%). With a specificity ≥95%, GRACE(IHDthMI) >186 and GRACE(IH6mDthMI) >161 could recognize 12% and 11% patients as high risk, which were greater than other GRACEs, HEART ≥8(9%) and TIMI ≥5(8%). Conclusions: In this Chinese setting, certain strengths of GRACE models beyond HEART and TIMI scores were still noteworthy for stratifying chest pain patients. The validation and reasonable application of appropriate GRACE models in the evaluation of undifferentiated chest pain should be recommended.

Retrospective validation of a machine learning clinical decision support tool for myocardial infarction risk stratification

“…Fourth, the absence of ECG data in this dataset represents a limitation on the use of TIMI and GRACE as comparator models, as both scores incorporate ECG findings as inputs. The performance of the adjusted TIMI (AUROC = 0.78) and GRACE (AUROC = 0.61) in this study are largely consistent with previous research on unadjusted TIMI and GRACE scores to predict MI and other major adverse cardiovascular events in ED patients [49–51]. A further limitation on the use of the GRACE and TIMI scores as comparators is that neither tool was explicitly designed to only predict MI diagnosis within a hospital stay.…”