Skip Navigation


QJM Advance Access originally published online on December 15, 2006
QJM 2007 100(1):11-18; doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcl133
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/1/11    most recent
hcl133v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ramsay, G.
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.A.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ramsay, G.
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.A.A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Risk prediction in patients presenting with suspected cardiac pain: the GRACE and TIMI risk scores versus clinical evaluation

G. Ramsay, M. Podogrodzka, C. McClure and K.A.A. Fox

From Cardiovascular Research, Division of Medical and Radiological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Address correspondence to Professor Keith A.A. Fox, Cardiovascular Research, Division of Medical and Radiological Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Chancellors Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB. email: k.a.a.fox{at}ed.ac.uk

Received 31 July 2006 and in revised form 11 October 2006


   Abstract

Background: Identifying which patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain are at risk of major cardiac events is a major clinical challenge. Clinical evaluation may lack sufficient precision, leading to unnecessary admission or inappropriate discharge. It is uncertain whether risk scores derived from ACS populations apply to unselected patients with chest pain.

Aim: To determine the predictive accuracies of the GRACE risk score, the TIMI risk score and clinical evaluation in unselected patients with suspected cardiac pain.

Design: Prospective observational study.

Methods: We recruited 347 sequential patients with suspected cardiac pain presenting to a large teaching hospital. The main outcome measures were death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and emergency revascularization, in hospital and at 3 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for TIMI and GRACE risk scores and clinical evaluation.

Results: Overall 54 patients (15.6%) experienced a major cardiac event (16 deaths, seven myocardial infarctions (MIs), one emergency revascularization) or emergency re-admission (n = 30) within 3 months. Both GRACE (p < 0.001) and TIMI scores (p < 0.001) predicted death/MI/revascularization (and the composite including re-admission), but the GRACE score was superior to the TIMI score for predicting major cardiac events (z = 2.05), and both scores were superior to clinical evaluation (ROC areas 0.82, 0.74 and 0.55 respectively). The GRACE score predicted an ACS discharge diagnosis (p < 0.001) and duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001).

Discussion: In unselected patients presenting with suspected cardiac pain, the GRACE risk score is superior to the TIMI risk score in predicting major cardiac events, and both risk scores are superior to using ECG and troponin findings at presentation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.