Comparison of Prognostic Value among 4 Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS (CCC-ACS) Project.

Background: Accurate risk assessment and prospective stratification are of great importance for treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the optimal risk evaluation systems for predicting different type of ACS adverse events in Chinese population have not been established. Material/Methods: Our data were derived from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS (CCC-ACS) Project, a multicenter registry program. We incorporated data on 44 750 patients in the study. We compared the performance of the following 4 different risk score systems with regard to prediction of in-hospital adverse events: the Global Registry for Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score system; the age, creatinine and ejection fraction (ACEF) risk score system, and its modified version (AGEF), and the Canada Acute Coronary Syndrome (C-ACS) risk assessment system. Results: Admission AGEF risk score was a better prognosis index of potential for in-hospital mortality for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) than GRACE risk score (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.819, P=0.012), ACEF (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.827, P=0.014), C-ACS (AUC: 0.845 vs 0.767, P<0.001). In patients with non-ST segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), there was no statistically significant difference between the GRACE risk scale and AGEF (AUC: 0.853 vs 0.832, P=0.140) for in-hospital death. Conclusions: AGEF risk score showed a non-inferior utility compared with the other 3 scoring systems in estimating in-hospital mortality in ACS patients.