External validation of the GRACE risk score and the risk-treatment paradox in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Niels M R van der Sangen, Jaouad Azzahhafi, Dean R P P Chan Pin Yin, Joyce Peper, Senna Rayhi, Ronald J Walhout, Melvyn Tjon Joe Gin, Deborah M Nicastia, Jorina Langerveld, Georgios J Vlachojannis, Rutger J van Bommel, Yolande Appelman, José P S Henriques, Jurriën M Ten Berg, Wouter J Kikkert, Niels M R van der Sangen, Jaouad Azzahhafi, Dean R P P Chan Pin Yin, Joyce Peper, Senna Rayhi, Ronald J Walhout, Melvyn Tjon Joe Gin, Deborah M Nicastia, Jorina Langerveld, Georgios J Vlachojannis, Rutger J van Bommel, Yolande Appelman, José P S Henriques, Jurriën M Ten Berg, Wouter J Kikkert

Abstract

Objectives: To validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods: Data from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined.

Results: Discriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients.

Conclusions: The GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03823547.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; myocardial infarction; pharmacology, clinical.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Dr Wouter J Kikkert has received a research grant from AstraZeneca. Dr Georgios J Vlachojannis has research grants from MicroPort and Ferrer and personal fees from Terumo and AstraZeneca. Dr Yolande Appelman has received a research grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation. Professor Dr José PS Henriques has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, B. Braun, Getinge, Ferrer, Infraredx and ZonMw. Professor Dr Jurriën M ten Berg has received research grants from AstraZeneca and ZonMw and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Accu-Metrics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Ferrer, Idorsia, Pfizer and The Medicines Company. All other authors have no relationships with industry to disclose.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic curve of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score for in-hospital mortality (blue) and 1-year mortality (green) in the validation cohort. AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calibration plot of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score for in-hospital mortality (blue) and 1-year mortality (green) in the validation cohort. Patients were divided into deciles based on the predicted risk of mortality, each data point represents one decile. The dashed line shows absolute agreement between the observed and predicted rates.
Figure 3
Figure 3
All-cause mortality according to treatment status in the low-risk, intermediate- and high-risk categories.

References

    1. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. . 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2021;42:1289–367. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575
    1. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. . 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018;39:119–77. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393
    1. Fox KAA, Fitzgerald G, Puymirat E, et al. . Should patients with acute coronary disease be stratified for management according to their risk? derivation, external validation and outcomes using the updated grace risk score. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004425. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004425
    1. Szummer K, Wallentin L, Lindhagen L, et al. . Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3056–65. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx515
    1. Szummer K, Wallentin L, Lindhagen L, et al. . Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014. Eur Heart J 2018;39:3766–76. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy554
    1. Saar A, Marandi T, Ainla T, et al. . The risk-treatment paradox in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients according to their estimated grace risk. Int J Cardiol 2018;272:26–32. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.015
    1. Hall M, Bebb OJ, Dondo TB, et al. . Guideline-indicated treatments and diagnostics, grace risk score, and survival for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2018;39:3798–806. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy517
    1. Motivala AA, Cannon CP, Srinivas VS, et al. . Changes in myocardial infarction guideline adherence as a function of patient risk: an end to paradoxical care? J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1760–5. 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.050
    1. Chan Pin Yin DRPP, Vos G-JA, van der Sangen NMR, et al. . Rationale and Design of the Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) Registry: Towards "Personalized Medicine" in Daily Clinical Practice. J Clin Med 2020;9. 10.3390/jcm9103173. [Epub ahead of print: 30 09 2020].
    1. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. . Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. The TRIPOD group. Circulation 2015;131:211–9. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014508
    1. Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular risk prediction: basic concepts, current status, and future directions. Circulation 2010;121:1768–77. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.849166
    1. Huang W, FitzGerald G, Goldberg RJ, et al. . Performance of the GRACE risk score 2.0 simplified algorithm for predicting 1-year death after hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome in a contemporary Multiracial cohort. Am J Cardiol 2016;118:1105–10. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.07.029
    1. Littnerova S, Kala P, Jarkovsky J, et al. . GRACE score among six risk scoring systems (CADILLAC, PAMI, TIMI, dynamic TIMI, Zwolle) demonstrated the best predictive value for prediction of long-term mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123215. 10.1371/journal.pone.0123215
    1. Chen Y-H, Huang S-S, Lin S-J. TIMI and GRACE risk scores predict both short-term and long-term outcomes in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction. Acta Cardiol Sin 2018;34:4–12. 10.6515/ACS.201801_34(1).20170730B
    1. Ono M, Kawashima H, Hara H, et al. . External validation of the GRACE risk score 2.0 in the contemporary all‐comers GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 2021;42. 10.1002/ccd.29772
    1. Shuvy M, Beeri G, Klein E, et al. . Accuracy of the global registry of acute coronary events (grace) risk score in contemporary treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Can J Cardiol 2018;34:1613–7. 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.09.015
    1. Neumann JT, Goßling A, Sörensen NA, et al. . Temporal trends in incidence and outcome of acute coronary syndrome. Clin Res Cardiol 2020;109:1186–92. 10.1007/s00392-020-01612-1
    1. Melki D, Lugnegård J, Alfredsson J, et al. . Implications of Introducing High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T Into Clinical Practice: Data From the SWEDEHEART Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:1655–64. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.02.044
    1. Rosselló X, Huo Y, Pocock S, et al. . Global geographical variations in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction management and post-discharge mortality. Int J Cardiol 2017;245:27–34. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.039
    1. André R, Bongard V, Elosua R, et al. . International differences in acute coronary syndrome patients' baseline characteristics, clinical management and outcomes in Western Europe: the EURHOBOP study. Heart 2014;100:1201–7. 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305196
    1. Gong IY, Goodman SG, Brieger D, et al. . GRACE risk score: Sex-based validity of in-hospital mortality prediction in Canadian patients with acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol 2017;244:24–9. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.055
    1. Ten Haaf ME, Bax M, Ten Berg JM, et al. . Sex differences in characteristics and outcome in acute coronary syndrome patients in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J 2019;27:263–71. 10.1007/s12471-019-1271-0
    1. Pagidipati NJ, Peterson ED. Acute coronary syndromes in women and men. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016;13:471–80. 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.89
    1. Cerqueira Junior AMDS, Pereira LGDS, Souza TMBde, et al. . Prognostic accuracy of the grace score in octogenarians and nonagenarians with acute coronary syndromes. Arq Bras Cardiol 2018;110:24–9. 10.5935/abc.20170175
    1. Anand A, Cudmore S, Robertson S, et al. . Frailty assessment and risk prediction by GRACE score in older patients with acute myocardial infarction. BMC Geriatr 2020;20:102. 10.1186/s12877-020-1500-9
    1. Lee CH, Tan M, Yan AT, et al. . Use of cardiac catheterization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk: reasons why physicians choose not to refer their patients. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:291–6. 10.1001/archinternmed.2007.78
    1. Szummer K, Lundman P, Jacobson SH, et al. . Influence of renal function on the effects of early revascularization in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: data from the Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART). Circulation 2009;120:851–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.838169
    1. Mohammed S, Arabi A, El-Menyar A, et al. . Impact of polypharmacy on adherence to evidence-based medication in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2016;14:388–93. 10.2174/1570161113666151030105805
    1. Bebb O, Hall M, Fox KAA, et al. . Performance of hospitals according to the ESC ACCA quality indicators and 30-day mortality for acute myocardial infarction: national cohort study using the United Kingdom myocardial ischaemia national audit project (MINAP) register. Eur Heart J 2017;38:974–82. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx008
    1. Schiele F, Gale CP, Simon T, et al. . Assessment of quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction in the FAST-MI (French registry of acute ST-elevation or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction) registries. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2017;10. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003336
    1. Hall M, Dondo TB, Yan AT, et al. . Association of clinical factors and therapeutic strategies with improvements in survival following non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 2003-2013. JAMA 2016;316:1073–82. 10.1001/jama.2016.10766

Source: PubMed

Подписаться