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

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

Impact of recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the FORCE-ACS registry

Objective Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events during follow-up. Our study aimed to quantify and compare the impact of these adverse events on quality of life (QoL).Methods Data from patients with ACS prospectively enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for this study. The primary ischaemic and bleeding events of interest were hospital readmission for ACS and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3 bleeding during 12 months follow-up. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 12-item Short Form Survey version 2 derived Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) scores at 12 months follow-up.Results In total, 3339 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 27.9% women) were included. During follow-up, ischaemic events occurred in 202 patients (6.0%) and bleeding events in 565 patients (16.9%). After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, ischaemic events remained independently associated with lower QoL regardless of metric used. Bleeding was also independently associated with lower EQ-5D VAS and PCS scores, but not with a lower MCS score. The QoL decrement associated with ischaemic events was numerically larger than the decrement associated with bleeding.Conclusions Ischaemic and bleeding events remain prevalent and are independently associated with lower QoL at 12 months follow-up in patients previously admitted for ACS. The incidence and impact of these adverse events should be considered when balancing individual ischaemic and bleeding risks

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

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

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

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

Treatment of elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction:the nationwide POPular age registry

ObjectiveWe describe the current treatment of elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) enrolled in a national registry.MethodsThe POPular AGE registry is a prospective, multicentre study of patients &gt;= 75 years of age presenting with NSTEMI, performed in the Netherlands. Management was at the discretion of the treating physician. Cardiovascular events consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke. Bleeding was classified according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria.ResultsA total of 646 patients were enrolled between August 2016 and May 2018. Median age was 81 (IQR 77-84) years and 58% were male. Overall, 75% underwent coronary angiography, 40% percutaneous coronary intervention, and 11% coronary artery bypass grafting, while 49.8% received pharmacological therapy only. At discharge, dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) was prescribed to 56.7%, and 27.4% received oral anticoagulation plus at least one antiplatelet agent. At 1-year follow-up, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke had occurred in 13.6% and major bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in 3.9% of patients. The risk of both cardiovascular events and major bleeding was highest during the 1st month. However, cardiovascular risk was three times as high as bleeding risk in this elderly population, both after 1 month and after 1 year.ConclusionsIn this national registry of elderly patients with NSTEMI, the majority are treated according to current European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Both the cardiovascular and bleeding risk are highest during the 1st month after NSTEMI. However, the cardiovascular risk was three times as high as the bleeding risk

Conservative versus Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction:Insights from the International POPular Age Registry

This registry assessed the impact of conservative and invasive strategies on major adverse clinical events (MACE) in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients aged &amp; GE;75 years with NSTEMI were prospectively registered from European centers and followed up for one year. Outcomes were compared between conservative and invasive groups in the overall population and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort. MACE included cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, and stroke. The study included 1190 patients (median age 80 years, 43% female). CAG was performed in 67% (N = 798), with two-thirds undergoing revascularization. Conservatively treated patients had higher baseline risk. After propensity score matching, 319 patient pairs were successfully matched. MACE occurred more frequently in the conservative group (total population 20% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77, p = 0.001), remaining significant in the PSM cohort (18% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, an early invasive strategy was associated with benefits over conservative management in elderly patients with NSTEMI. Risk factors associated with ischemia and bleeding should guide strategy selection rather than solely relying on age