Comparison of the CAMI-NSTEMI and GRACE Risk Model for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Chinese Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients.
Journal
Cardiology research and practice
ISSN: 2090-8016
Titre abrégé: Cardiol Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101516542
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
revised:
13
06
2020
accepted:
18
06
2020
entrez:
11
8
2020
pubmed:
11
8
2020
medline:
11
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ability of risk models to predict in-hospital mortality and the influence on downstream therapeutic strategy has not been fully investigated in Chinese Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. Thus, we sought to validate and compare the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk model (GRM) and China Acute Myocardial Infarction risk model (CRM) and investigate impacts of the two models on the selection of downstream therapeutic strategies among these patients. We identified 2587 consecutive patients with NSTEMI. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death. For each patient, the predicted mortality was calculated according to GRM and CRM, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to assess the performance of models. In-hospital death occurred in 4.89% (126/2587) patients. Compared to GRM, CRM demonstrated a larger AUC (0.809 versus 0.752, In Chinese NSTEMI patients, the CRM provided a more accurate estimation for in-hospital mortality, and application of the CRM instead of the GRM changes the downstream therapeutic strategy remarkably.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32774913
doi: 10.1155/2020/2469281
pmc: PMC7396005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2469281Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Peng Wang et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Dec 1;272:26-32
pubmed: 30121176
Stat Med. 2008 Jan 30;27(2):157-72; discussion 207-12
pubmed: 17569110
Am Heart J. 2019 Sep;215:1-11
pubmed: 31255895
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Eur Heart J. 2016 Apr 21;37(16):1304-11
pubmed: 26757786
Am Heart J. 2016 May;175:193-201.e3
pubmed: 27179740
Circ J. 2018 Jun 25;82(7):1884-1891
pubmed: 29887577
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019 Apr;16(4):203-212
pubmed: 30467329
Clin Cardiol. 2019 Oct;42(10):1028-1040
pubmed: 31317575
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Feb;95(5):e2677
pubmed: 26844503
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 5;9(9):e032165
pubmed: 31492797
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jun;10(6):
pubmed: 28606999
JAMA. 2017 Oct 10;318(14):1377-1384
pubmed: 29049590
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 May 1;6(3):299-308
pubmed: 23652735
Eur Heart J. 2018 Nov 7;39(42):3798-3806
pubmed: 30202849
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Oct 27;163(19):2345-53
pubmed: 14581255
Crit Care Med. 2007 Sep;35(9):2052-6
pubmed: 17568333
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23;64(24):e139-e228
pubmed: 25260718
Circulation. 2015 Jan 13;131(2):211-9
pubmed: 25561516
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 12;9(9):e030772
pubmed: 31515430