ACEF performed better than other risk scores in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome during long term follow-up

Prognostic value of age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction risk score in patients evaluated with fractional flow reserve: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated the relationship between age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction risk score and the severity of coronary lesions detected by applying fractional flow reserve in the patient group presenting with chronic coronary syndrome. Also, we presented long-term follow-up results in patients whose age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score was evaluated by the fractional flow reserve procedure.

METHODS

This study was planned retrospectively and in two centers. For this purpose, 114 patients who met the study criteria and who underwent elective fractional flow reserve between January 2014 and January 2019 were included in the study. Age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction was calculated as age/left ventricular ejection fraction +1 (if estimated glomerular filtration rate<30 mL/min).

RESULTS

They were divided into two groups according to the cutoff value of the age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score. A total of 76 patients had an age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score of ≤1.17 (Group I) and 38 patients had an age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction score of >1.17 (Group II). The number of patients with severe lesions in fractional flow reserve was significantly higher in Group II compared with Group I (60.5 vs. 32.9%, p=0.005). According to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, a significant increase was observed in major adverse cardiac events and mortality during the follow-up period in the group with a high-risk score (Log Rank: 15.01, p<0.001 and Log Rank: 8.51, p=0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In light of the data we obtained from our study, we found a correlation between the severity of the lesion detected in fractional flow reserve and the age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction scores. In addition, we found that patients with high age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction scores had higher mortality and major adverse cardiac events rates during follow-up.

The relationship between degree of coronary artery stenosis detected by coronary computed tomography angiography and ACEF risk score in patients with chronic coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The ACEF risk score (age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) has been associated with satisfactory predictive values not only for short-term and long-term mortality but also for major adverse cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate the relationship between ACEF risk score and degree of coronary artery stenosis.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary percutaneous coronary intervention center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In patients with coronary coronary artery stenosis <70% were compared with patients with stenosis ≥70%. All were diagnosed with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) and had undergone coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed for the cut-off value of the ACEF risk score. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed for significant parameters related to degree of coronary artery stenosis in coronary CTA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Relationship between ACEF risk score and degree of coronary artery stenosis in coronary CTA.

SAMPLE SIZE

148 patients.

RESULTS

In the multivariable regression analysis; left ventricular ejection fraction (OR: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.89-0.99, P=.015) and ACEF risk score (OR: 5.63; 95% CI: 1.62-19.57, P=.007) were independent predictors for degree of coronary artery stenosis. The ACEF risk score was statistically significantly higher in with patients with stenosis ≥70% (1.43 [0.59]) than in patients with stenosis <70% (0.98 [0.35]), P<.001). An ACEF risk score value >1.04 was a predictor of the presence of severe coronary artery stenosis detected by coronary CTA in patients with CCS, with 66% sensitivity and 69% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

A high ACEF risk score (age, creatinine, ejection fraction) in patients with CCS is associated with the presence of severe coronary artery stenosis detected by coronary CTA, and was useful as an assessment tool for coronary angiography in patients with CCS.

LIMITATIONS

Since we do not have long-term follow-up results, we do not know the prognostic value of the ACEF risk score in the long-term follow-up of patients with CCS.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Comparison between the age, creatinine and ejection fraction II score and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: which score for which patient?

OBJECTIVES

Each surgical risk prediction model requires a validation analysis within a large 'real-life' sample. The aim of this study is to validate the age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) II risk score compared with the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II.

METHODS

All patients operated on at 8 Italian cardiac surgery centres in the period 2009-2019 with available data for the calculation of EuroSCORE II and ACEF II were included in the study. Mortality was recorded and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for the overall study population and for different patient subgroups according to the type of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 14 804 patients were enrolled [median age of 70 (62-77) years, 35.4% female], and among these, 3.1% underwent emergency surgery. Thirty-day mortality was 2.84% (n = 420). In the total population, the area under the curve with EurosCORE II was significantly higher than that recorded with ACEF II [0.792, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.8 vs 0.73, 95% CI 0.73-0.74; P < 0.001]. This finding was also confirmed in the patient subgroups undergoing isolated valve surgery (EuroSCORE II versus ACEF II: 0.80, 95% CI 0.79-0.814 vs 0.74, 95% CI 0.724-0.754; P = 0.045) or isolated aortic surgery (0.754, 95% CI 0.70-0.79 vs 0.53, 95% CI 0.48-0.58; P = 0.002). In contrast, the 2 scores did not differ significantly in patients undergoing isolated bypass surgery (0.8, 95% CI 0.78-0.81 vs 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.78; P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In both the overall population and patient subgroups, EuroSCORE II proved to be more accurate than ACEF II. However, in patients undergoing bypass surgery, ACEF II proved to be an easy and simple to use risk score, demonstrating comparable risk prediction performance with the more complex EuroSCORE II.

Sex Differences in Characteristics and Outcomes among Low-Risk Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients during Long Term Follow-Up

Previous heterogenous studies show conflicting data about sex-based outcomes of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients. This study evaluated 300 NSTE-ACS patients undergoing a coronary angiography between September 2012 and May 2015 that were managed with all-treatment strategies. The sample was stratified by sex and analyzed for the baseline characteristics and outcomes. The main outcome included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), which were a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or urgent coronary revascularization. The female patients were older (median of 69.0 vs. 63.0 years, p = 0.008) and had lower values of BMI (median of 26.3 vs. 28.2 kg/m², p < 0.001) and eGFR (76.44 ± 22.43 vs. 94.04 ± 27.91 mL/min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the treatment strategies, angiographic characteristics and discharge therapy between the groups (p > 0.05). The female patients had significantly higher unadjusted rates of ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.023), cardiac mortality (11.3%, vs. 3.9%, p = 0.022) and MACCE (33.8%, vs. 19.5%, p = 0.014); female sex was a significant predictor of MACCE in the univariate analysis (HR 1.86, 95%CI 1.12–3.09, p = 0.014); and the cumulative incidence of MACCE was higher in female patients (p = 0.014). After the adjustment, the predictive effect of female sex became non-significant (HR 1.60, 95%CI 0.94–2.73, p = 0.083), while there was no difference in the cumulative incidence of MACCE among the propensity score matched cohort (p = 0.177). Female NSTE-ACS patients have worse long-term outcomes compared to their male counterparts. However, the differences disappear after adjustment and propensity score matching. Continuing efforts and health measures are required to alleviate any sex-based differences in the NSTE-ACS population.

Predictive value of the age, creatinine and ejection fraction score in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bail-out tirofiban therapy

INTRODUCTION

In patients who have undergone interventional cardiac procedures, the risk of bleeding is higher than in patients who received conservative treatment due to multiple medications and comorbidities.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) score for predicting bleeding events and to compare short- and long-term clinical outcomes according to the ACEF score in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with bail-out tirofiban therapy (BOTT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 2,543 patients were included and divided into three groups according to the following ACEF score tertiles: T1 (ACEFlow ≤ 1.033), T2 (1.033 < ACEFmid ≤ 1.371), and T3 (ACEFhigh > 1.371). The main outcomes measured were the incidence rates of relevant bleeding events and mortality within 30 days and 3 years after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 73 (2.9%) patients had Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding events of grades 3, 4 or 5 and 104 (4%) patients died in a 30-day period. The ACEF score was effective at predicting 30-day bleeding (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): 0.658, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.579-0.737; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (AUC = 0.701, 95% CI: 0.649-0.753; p < 0.001) and 3-year mortality (AUC = 0.778, 95% CI: 0.748-0.807; p < 0.001) events. Considering the ACEF score tertiles, T3 patients presented greater 30-day bleeding (1.6%, 2.8% and 4.1%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.37-4.80), 30-day mortality (1.7%, 3.5% and 7.1%; OR = 4.53, 95% CI: 2.51-8.18) and 3-year mortality (6.4%, 11% and 19.8%; hazard ratio = 3.56, 95% CI: 2.58-4.91) risks.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACEF score is a user-friendly tool with excellent predictive value for bleeding events and mortality in patients undergoing pPCI with BOTT.