Validation and Comparison of Six Risk Scores for Post Acute Myocardial Infarction Infection

Y. H. Liu,L. T. Wang,Y. N. Dai,L. H. Zeng,H. L. Fan,C. Y. Duan,N. Tan,J. Y. Chen,P. C. He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2912

IF: 39.3

2020-01-01

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Various risk scores have been proven to predict outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, few of them were validated and compared the difference of the prediction of infection during hospitalization in such patients. We aimed to validate and compare the discriminatory value of different risk scores for predicting infection. Patients who were diagnosed with STEMI treated with PCI were enrolled from January 2010 to May 2018. The six risk scores included the Age, Serum Creatinine (SCr), or Glomerular Filtration Rate, and Ejection Fraction (ACEF or AGEF) score, Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome Risk Score (CACS score), CHADS2 score, Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score and Mehran score. The primary end point was infection during hospitalization. The secondary endpoint was major adverse clinical events including all cause death, stroke and any bleeding. The prognostic accuracy of the six scores was assessed using the c statistic for discrimination and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for calibration. A total of 2260 eligible patients were enrolled (62.32±12.36 year, 81.3% of males). A significant gradient of risk with respect to infection and in hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) was observed with increasing all six risk scores. Other than the CHADS2 score (AUC: 0.682; 95% CI, 0.652–0.712), other five risk scores showed the good discrimination for predicting infection, with the GRACE score being the best (AUC: 0.791; 95% CI, 0.765–0.817). In addition, all risk scores showed best calibration for infection, but good calibration for CACS risk score (calibration slope: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.18–1.35) (Figure 1). Furthermore, each score showed a best discrimination for in hospital MACE, with AUCs ranging from 0.761 to 0.786, other than CACS risk score and CHADS2 risk score with AUC of 0.700 and 0.696, respectively. All risk scores showed best calibration for in hospital MACE. In patients with STEMI undergoing PCI, these risk scores (ACEF, AGEF, CACS, GRACE and Mehran) showed good discrimination and calibration to predict infection and MACE. The CACS score was recommended for clinical use as its clinical variables were simple and practical. Figure 1 Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China