New Risk Score for Patients With Acute Chest Pain, Non–ST-Segment Deviation, and Normal Troponin Concentrations
A Comparison With the TIMI Risk Score
Juan Sanchis, MD*,*,
Vicent Bodí, MD*,
Julio Núñez, MD*,
Vicente Bertomeu-González, MD*,
Cristina Gómez*,
María José Bosch, MD*,
Luciano Consuegra, MD*,
Xavier Bosch, MD ,
Francisco J. Chorro, MD* and
Àngel Llàcer, MD*
* Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Clínic Universitari, Universitat de València, València, Spain
Institut Clínic de Malalties Cardiovasculars. Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain
View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Risk categories according to risk score: very low-risk (0 points, primary end point = 0%), low-risk (1 point, primary end point = 3.1%), intermediate-risk (2 points, primary end point = 5.4%), high-risk (3 points, primary end point = 17.6%), and very high-risk ( 4 points, primary end point = 29.6%). The statistical significance for the trend was p = 0.00001; the differences between the very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk categories being significant compared to the very high- (p = 0.0001, p = 0.0001, and p = 0.0001, respectively) and high-risk (p = 0.002, p = 0.0001, p = 0.0001, respectively) categories. IDDM = insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
|
|
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Receiver-operating characteristic curves of the new risk score and of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score for the primary end point (death or myocardial infarction at 1 year) (left) and the secondary end point (death or myocardial infarction or urgent revascularization at 14 days) (right). The accuracy of the new risk score was greater for both the primary (C index of 0.78 vs. 0.66, p = 0.0002) and secondary (C index of 0.70 vs. 0.66, p = 0.1) end points. Solid line = new risk score; dashed line = TIMI risk score.
|
|
|
