Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Contemporary clinical risk stratification schemata for predicting stroke and thromboembolism (TE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are largely derived from risk factors identified from trial cohorts. Thus, many potential risk factors have not been included.
METHODS: We refined the 2006 Birmingham/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk stratification schema into a risk factor-based approach by reclassifying and/or incorporating additional new risk factors where relevant. This schema was then compared with existing stroke risk stratification schema in a real-world cohort of patients with AF (n = 1,084) from the Euro Heart Survey for AF.
RESULTS: Risk categorization differed widely between the different schemes compared. Patients classified as high risk ranged from 10.2% with the Framingham schema to 75.7% with the Birmingham 2009 schema. The classic CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age > 75, Diabetes, prior Stroke/transient ischemic attack) schema categorized the largest proportion (61.9%) into the intermediate-risk strata, whereas the Birmingham 2009 schema classified 15.1% into this category. The Birmingham 2009 schema classified only 9.2% as low risk, whereas the Framingham scheme categorized 48.3% as low risk. Calculated C-statistics suggested modest predictive value of all schema for TE. The Birmingham 2009 schema fared marginally better (C-statistic, 0.606) than CHADS(2). However, those classified as low risk by the Birmingham 2009 and NICE schema were truly low risk with no TE events recorded, whereas TE events occurred in 1.4% of low-risk CHADS(2) subjects. When expressed as a scoring system, the Birmingham 2009 schema (CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc acronym) showed an increase in TE rate with increasing scores (P value for trend = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel, simple stroke risk stratification schema, based on a risk factor approach, provides some improvement in predictive value for TE over the CHADS(2) schema, with low event rates in low-risk subjects and the classification of only a small proportion of subjects into the intermediate-risk category. This schema could improve our approach to stroke risk stratification in patients with AF.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Contemporary clinical risk stratification schemata for predicting stroke and thromboembolism (TE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are largely derived from risk factors identified from trial cohorts. Thus, many potential risk factors have not been included.
METHODS: We refined the 2006 Birmingham/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk stratification schema into a risk factor-based approach by reclassifying and/or incorporating additional new risk factors where relevant. This schema was then compared with existing stroke risk stratification schema in a real-world cohort of patients with AF (n = 1,084) from the Euro Heart Survey for AF.
RESULTS: Risk categorization differed widely between the different schemes compared. Patients classified as high risk ranged from 10.2% with the Framingham schema to 75.7% with the Birmingham 2009 schema. The classic CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age > 75, Diabetes, prior Stroke/transient ischemic attack) schema categorized the largest proportion (61.9%) into the intermediate-risk strata, whereas the Birmingham 2009 schema classified 15.1% into this category. The Birmingham 2009 schema classified only 9.2% as low risk, whereas the Framingham scheme categorized 48.3% as low risk. Calculated C-statistics suggested modest predictive value of all schema for TE. The Birmingham 2009 schema fared marginally better (C-statistic, 0.606) than CHADS(2). However, those classified as low risk by the Birmingham 2009 and NICE schema were truly low risk with no TE events recorded, whereas TE events occurred in 1.4% of low-risk CHADS(2) subjects. When expressed as a scoring system, the Birmingham 2009 schema (CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc acronym) showed an increase in TE rate with increasing scores (P value for trend = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel, simple stroke risk stratification schema, based on a risk factor approach, provides some improvement in predictive value for TE over the CHADS(2) schema, with low event rates in low-risk subjects and the classification of only a small proportion of subjects into the intermediate-risk category. This schema could improve our approach to stroke risk stratification in patients with AF.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical risk prediction tool for estimating the cumulative six month risk of death and death or myocardial infarction to facilitate triage and management of patients with acute coronary syndrome.
DESIGN: Prospective multinational observational study in which we used multivariable regression to develop a final predictive model, with prospective and external validation.
SETTING: Ninety four hospitals in 14 countries in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand.
POPULATION: 43,810 patients (21,688 in derivation set; 22,122 in validation set) presenting with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST segment elevation enrolled in the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) study between April 1999 and September 2005.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death and myocardial infarction.
RESULTS: 1989 patients died in hospital, 1466 died between discharge and six month follow-up, and 2793 sustained a new non-fatal myocardial infarction. Nine factors independently predicted death and the combined end point of death or myocardial infarction in the period from admission to six months after discharge: age, development (or history) of heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, systolic blood pressure, Killip class, initial serum creatinine concentration, elevated initial cardiac markers, cardiac arrest on admission, and ST segment deviation. The simplified model was robust, with prospectively validated C-statistics of 0.81 for predicting death and 0.73 for death or myocardial infarction from admission to six months after discharge. The external applicability of the model was validated in the dataset from GUSTO IIb (global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries).
CONCLUSIONS: This risk prediction tool uses readily identifiable variables to provide robust prediction of the cumulative six month risk of death or myocardial infarction. It is a rapid and widely applicable method for assessing cardiovascular risk to complement clinical assessment and can guide patient triage and management across the spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Treatments for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding. Baseline prediction of bleeding risk can complement ischemic risk prediction for optimization of NSTEMI care; however, existing models are not well suited for this purpose.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed (n=71 277) and validated (n=17 857) a model that identifies 8 independent baseline predictors of in-hospital major bleeding among community-treated NSTEMI patients enrolled in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Model performance was tested by c statistics in the derivation and validation cohorts and according to postadmission treatment (ie, invasive and antithrombotic therapy). The CRUSADE bleeding score (range 1 to 100 points) was created by assignment of weighted integers that corresponded to the coefficient of each variable. The rate of major bleeding increased by bleeding risk score quintiles: 3.1% for those at very low risk (score < or = 20); 5.5% for those at low risk (score 21-30); 8.6% for those at moderate risk (score 31-40); 11.9% for those at high risk (score 41-50); and 19.5% for those at very high risk (score >50; P(trend) <0.001). The c statistics for the major bleeding model (derivation=0.72 and validation=0.71) and risk score (derivation=0.71 and validation=0.70) were similar. The c statistics for the model among treatment subgroups were as follows: > or = 2 antithrombotics=0.72; <2 antithrombotics=0.73; invasive approach=0.73; conservative approach=0.68.
CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE bleeding score quantifies risk for in-hospital major bleeding across all postadmission treatments, which enhances baseline risk assessment for NSTEMI care.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Treatments for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding. Baseline prediction of bleeding risk can complement ischemic risk prediction for optimization of NSTEMI care; however, existing models are not well suited for this purpose.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed (n=71 277) and validated (n=17 857) a model that identifies 8 independent baseline predictors of in-hospital major bleeding among community-treated NSTEMI patients enrolled in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Model performance was tested by c statistics in the derivation and validation cohorts and according to postadmission treatment (ie, invasive and antithrombotic therapy). The CRUSADE bleeding score (range 1 to 100 points) was created by assignment of weighted integers that corresponded to the coefficient of each variable. The rate of major bleeding increased by bleeding risk score quintiles: 3.1% for those at very low risk (score < or = 20); 5.5% for those at low risk (score 21-30); 8.6% for those at moderate risk (score 31-40); 11.9% for those at high risk (score 41-50); and 19.5% for those at very high risk (score >50; P(trend) <0.001). The c statistics for the major bleeding model (derivation=0.72 and validation=0.71) and risk score (derivation=0.71 and validation=0.70) were similar. The c statistics for the model among treatment subgroups were as follows: > or = 2 antithrombotics=0.72; <2 antithrombotics=0.73; invasive approach=0.73; conservative approach=0.68.
CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE bleeding score quantifies risk for in-hospital major bleeding across all postadmission treatments, which enhances baseline risk assessment for NSTEMI care.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months.
RESULTS: Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity).
CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

2009 Massachusetts Medical Society