Asociación entre las escalas de riesgo isquémico y hemorrágico y el uso de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y 12 en pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo / Association between ischemic and bleeding risk scores and the use of new P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Introducción y objetivos: Las guías sobre síndrome coronario agudo (SCA) recomiendan el uso de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12 (prasugrel y ticagrelor) antes que el clopidogrel para los pacientes con riesgo isquémico moderado-alto, siempre que no tengan un riesgo hemorrágico elevado. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar la escala de riesgo isquémico GRACE y la de riesgo hemorrágico CRUSADE en relación con la prescripción de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12 al alta en pacientes con SCA. Métodos: Análisis retrospectivo de un registro multicéntrico de SCA. Se incluyó a 3.515 pacientes consecutivos. La asociación entre las escalas de riesgo y la prescripción de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12 se evaluó mediante análisis de regresión logística binaria. Resultados: Se trató con prasugrel o ticagrelor a 1.021 pacientes (29%). En el análisis multivariable, tanto la escala GRACE (cada 10 puntos, OR = 0,89; IC95%, 0,86-0,92; p < 0,001) como la escala CRUSADE (cada 10 puntos, OR = 0,96; IC95%, 0,94-0,98; p < 0,001) se asociaron inversamente con el uso de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12. Además, otros factores no incluidos en estas escalas (tipo de revascularización, trombosis del stent hospitalaria, hemorragia mayor e indicación concomitante de terapia anticoagulante) también fueron predictores del uso de los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12. Conclusiones: Los nuevos inhibidores del P2Y12 se prescribieron con mayor frecuencia a los pacientes con SCA con menor riesgo hemorrágico CRUSADE. Sin embargo, se encontró una paradoja en cuanto al riesgo isquémico, con mayor uso de estos agentes para pacientes con menor riesgo estimado con la escala GRACE. Estos resultados subrayan la importancia de la estratificación de riesgos para prescribir con seguridad las terapias óptimas

Introduction and objectives: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines recommend the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) over clopidogrel in patients with moderate-to-high ischemic risk, unless they have an increased bleeding risk. The aim of our study was to assess the GRACE risk score and the CRUSADE bleeding risk score relative to prescription of newer P2Y12 inhibitors at discharge in ACS patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a multicenter ACS registry; 3515 consecutive patients were included. The association between risk scores and prescription of newer P2Y12 inhibitors was assessed by binary logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 1021 patients (29%) were treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. On multivariate analyses, both GRACE (OR per 10 points, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.86-0.92; P < .001) and CRUSADE (OR per 10 points, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.94-0.98; P < .001) risk scores were inversely associated with the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors. Moreover, other factors not included in these scores (revascularization approach, in-hospital stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and concomitant indication for anticoagulation therapy) also predicted the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors. Conclusions: New P2Y12 inhibitors were more frequently prescribed among ACS patients with lower CRUSADE bleeding risk. However, an ischemic risk paradox was found, with higher use of these agents in patients with lower ischemic risk based on GRACE risk score estimates. These results underscore the importance of risk stratification to safely deliver optimal therapies

Association Between Ischemic and Bleeding Risk Scores and the Use of New P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines recommend the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) over clopidogrel in patients with moderate-to-high ischemic risk, unless they have an increased bleeding risk. The aim of our study was to assess the GRACE risk score and the CRUSADE bleeding risk score relative to prescription of newer P2Y12 inhibitors at discharge in ACS patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a multicenter ACS registry; 3515 consecutive patients were included. The association between risk scores and prescription of newer P2Y12 inhibitors was assessed by binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1021 patients (29%) were treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. On multivariate analyses, both GRACE (OR per 10 points, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.86-0.92; P < .001) and CRUSADE (OR per 10 points, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.94-0.98; P < .001) risk scores were inversely associated with the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors. Moreover, other factors not included in these scores (revascularization approach, in-hospital stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and concomitant indication for anticoagulation therapy) also predicted the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: New P2Y12 inhibitors were more frequently prescribed among ACS patients with lower CRUSADE bleeding risk. However, an ischemic risk paradox was found, with higher use of these agents in patients with lower ischemic risk based on GRACE risk score estimates. These results underscore the importance of risk stratification to safely deliver optimal therapies.

Evaluation of the CRUSADE Risk Score for Predicting Major Bleeding in Patients with Concomitant Kidney Dysfunction and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction (KD) has been associated with increased risk for major bleeding (MB) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and may be in part related to an underuse of evidence-based therapies. Our aim was to assess the predictive ability of the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) risk score in patients with concomitant ACS and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry including 1,587 ACS patients. In-hospital MB was prospectively recorded according to the CRUSADE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. KD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: The predictive ability of the CRUSADE risk score was assessed by discrimination and calibration analyses. A total of 465 (29%) subjects had KD. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, we found high CRUSADE risk score values to be associated with a higher rate of in-hospital MB; however, among patients with KD, it was not associated with BARC MB. Regardless of the MB definition, the predictive ability of the CRUSADE score in patients with KD was lower: area under the curve (AUC) 0.71 versus 0.79, p = 0.03 for CRUSADE MB and AUC 0.65 versus 0.75, p = 0.02 for BARC MB. Hosmer-Lemeshow analyses showed a good calibration in all renal function subgroups for both MB definitions (all p values >0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE risk score shows a lower accuracy for predicting in-hospital MB in KD patients compared to those without KD.

Comparison of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Risk Score Versus the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines Risk Score to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Risk assessment plays a major role in the management of acute coronary syndrome. The aim was to compare the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress Adverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Asociation guidelines (CRUSADE) risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality and major bleeding (MB) in 1,587 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome. In-hospital deaths and bleeding complications were prospectively collected. Bleeding complications were defined according to CRUSADE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. During the hospitalization, 71 patients (4.5%) died, 37 patients (2.3%) had BARC MB and 34 patients (2.1%) had CRUSADE MB. Receiver operating characteristic curves analyses showed GRACE risk score has better discrimination capacity than CRUSADE risk score for both, mortality (0.86 vs 0.79; p = 0.018) and BARC MB (0.80 vs 0.73; p = 0.028), but similar for CRUSADE MB (0.79 vs 0.79; p = 0.921). Both scores had low discrimination for predicting MB in the elderly (>75 years) and patients with atrial fibrillation, whereas CRUSADE risk score was especially poor for predicting MB in patients with <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or those treated with new antiplatelets. Reclassification analyses showed GRACE risk score was associated with a significant improvement in the predictive accuracy of CRUSADE risk score for predicting mortality (net reclassification improvement: 22.5%; p <0.001) and MB (net reclassification improvement: 17.6%; p = 0.033) but not for CRUSADE MB. In conclusion, GRACE risk score has a better predictive performance for predicting both in-hospital mortality and BARC MB. In light of these findings, we propose the GRACE score as a single score to predict these in-hospital complications.

¿El cardiólogo debe buscar enfermedad vascular cerebral en el paciente con enfermedad coronaria? Técnicas diagnósticas / Should cardiologists investigate cerebrovascular disease in patients with coronary artery disease? diagnostic techniques

La enfermedad cardiovascular es la afección crónica grave más prevalente en los países industrializados y está aumentando rápidamente. Tiene un carácter multisistémico, y con frecuencia afecta a varios lechos vasculares a la vez. El espectro clínico del paciente en riesgo comprende desde el individuo con factores de riesgo hasta el paciente con síndromes vasculares agudos, pasando por el paciente con eventos remotos. La aplicación indiscriminada de métodos de diagnóstico en población asintomática de baja-intermedia prevalencia conlleva con frecuencia más morbilidad de la que se pretende evitar y esto es así sobre todo cuando hablamos de criba de la enfermedad cerebrovascular. Precisamos de algoritmos que incorporen los datos clínicos y la información proporcionada por nuevas tecnologías a un coste razonable para que seamos capaces de realizar una detección coste-eficaz de enfermedad cerebrovascular severa que se pueda beneficiar de una intervención precoz en la fase asintomática de la enfermedad (AU)

Cardiovascular disease is the most prevalent serious chronic disease in industrialized countries and is rapidly becoming even more common. It is a multisystem disease that frequently affects a number of different vascular beds at the same time. Clinically, susceptible patients range from individuals with specific risk factors to patients with acute vascular syndromes to patients who have experienced an event in the distant past. The indiscriminate use of diagnostic techniques in asymptomatic individuals from populations with a low-to-medium disease prevalence is frequently associated with more morbidity than could possibly be avoided by diagnosis. This is particularly true of screening for cerebrovascular disease. There is a need for an algorithm that takes into account both clinical information and data obtained reasonably inexpensively using new technology and that will enable us to detect, in a cost-effective manner, serious cerebrovascular disease that would benefit from early intervention during the asymptomatic disease phase (AU)