This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Calvin, J. E. Articles by Parrillo, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Calvin, J. E. Articles by Parrillo, J. E.

CLINICAL STUDY: ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES

Validated risk stratification model accurately predicts low risk in patients with unstable angina

^a Section of Critical Care Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Manuscript received March 16, 1999; revised manuscript received June 15, 2000, accepted July 31, 2000.

Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. James E. Calvin, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois 60612
jcalvin{at}rpslmc.edu

BACKGROUND

In the mid 1990s, two unstable angina risk prediction models were proposed but neither has been validated on separate population or compared.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcome among high, medium and low risk unstable angina patients defined by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guideline to similar risk groups defined by a validated model from our institution (RUSH).

METHODS

Four hundred sixteen patients consecutively admitted to the hospital with unstable angina between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1997, were prospectively evaluated for risk factors. The presence of major adverse events such as myocardial infarction (MI), death and heart failure was assessed for each patient by chart review.

RESULTS

The composite end point of heart failure, MI or death occurred in 3% and 5% of the RUSH and AHCPR low risk categories, respectively, and in 8% and 10% of AHCPR and RUSH high risk categories, respectively. Recurrent ischemic events were best predicted by the RUSH model (high: 24% vs medium: 12% and low: 10%, p = 0.029), but not by the AHCPR model (high: 14% vs medium: 13% and low: 9%, p = 0.876). The RUSH model identified five times more low risk patients than the AHCPR model.

CONCLUSIONS

Both models identify patients with low and high event rates of MI, death or heart failure. However, the RUSH model allowed for five times more patients to be candidates for outpatient evaluation (low risk) with a similar observed event rate to the AHCPR model; also, the RUSH model more successfully predicted ischemic complications. We conclude that the RUSH model can be used clinically to identify patients for early noninvasive evaluation, thereby improving cost effectiveness of care.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AHCPR = Agency for Health Care Policy and Research   CK = creatinine kinase   MI = myocardial infarction   PTCA = percutaneous transluminal angioplasty

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D Brieger, K A A Fox, G FitzGerald, K A Eagle, A Budaj, A Avezum, C B Granger, B Costa, F A Anderson Jr, P. G Steg, et al. Predicting freedom from clinical events in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Heart, June 1, 2009; 95(11): 888 - 894. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. P. Giugliano and E. Braunwald The Year in Non--ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 6, 2005; 46(5): 906 - 919. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Goldman and A. J. Kirtane Triage of Patients with Acute Chest Pain and Possible Cardiac Ischemia: The Elusive Search for Diagnostic Perfection Ann Intern Med, December 16, 2003; 139(12): 987 - 995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Trevelyan, E W A Needham, S C H Smith, and R K Mattu Sources of diagnostic inaccuracy of conventional versus new diagnostic criteria for myocardial infarction in an unselected UK population with suspected cardiac chest pain, and investigation of independent prognostic variables Heart, December 1, 2003; 89(12): 1406 - 1410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. G. Kussmaul III Should we catheterize all patients with unstable angina? No--only the ones with coronary artery disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2001; 38(4): 977 - 978. [Full Text] [PDF]

				ED Risk Prediction for Acute Coronary Syndromes Not Useful Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, January 17, 2001; 2001(117): 7 - 7. [Full Text]

				D. A. Katz Risk stratification in unstable angina: the role of clinical prediction models J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 15, 2000; 36(6): 1809 - 1811. [Full Text] [PDF]