AUTHOR=Liu Yuanhui , Wang Litao , Chen Wei , Zeng Lihuan , Fan Hualin , Duan Chongyang , Dai Yining , Chen Jiyan , Xue Ling , He Pengcheng , Tan Ning
TITLE=Validation and Comparison of Six Risk Scores for Infection in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
VOLUME=7
YEAR=2021
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2020.621002
DOI=10.3389/fcvm.2020.621002
ISSN=2297-055X
ABSTRACT=Aims: Very few of the risk scores to predict infection in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been validated, and reports on their differences. We aimed to validate and compare the discriminatory value of different risk scores for infection.
Methods: A total of 2,260 eligible patients with STEMI undergoing PCI from January 2010 to May 2018 were enrolled. Six risk scores were investigated: age, serum creatinine, or glomerular filtration rate, and ejection fraction (ACEF or AGEF) score; Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome (CACS) risk score; CHADS2 score; Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score; and Mehran score conceived for contrast induced nephropathy. The primary endpoint was infection during hospitalization.
Results: Except CHADS2 score (AUC, 0.682; 95%CI, 0.652–0.712), the other risk scores showed good discrimination for predicting infection. All risk scores but CACS risk score (calibration slope, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.18–1.35) showed best calibration for infection. The risks scores also showed good discrimination for in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) (AUC range, 0.700–0.786), except for CHADS2 score. All six risk scores showed best calibration for in-hospital MACE. Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar results.
Conclusions: The ACEF, AGEF, CACS, GRACE, and Mehran scores showed a good discrimination and calibration for predicting infection and MACE.