Background
The aim of this study was to compare different cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared Framingham, SCORE and ASCVD risk scores in patients with coronary artery disease and tried to figure out which is a better predictor of acute coronary events.
Methods
A total of 414 patients who underwent coronary angiography for either stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in the study. Three risk models were calculated at admission or discharge using clinical data for each patient. The scores were compared in patients with and without coronary syndromes. ‘t’ test and chi-square tests were used as appropriate. p value <0.05 was considered significant. Finally ROC analyses were applied to determine the optimal risk model and area under curve (AUC) were calculated.
Methods
A total of 414 patients who underwent coronary angiography for either stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in the study. Three risk models were calculated at admission or discharge using clinical data for each patient. The scores were compared in patients with and without coronary syndromes. ‘t’ test and chi-square tests were used as appropriate. p value <0.05 was considered significant. Finally ROC analyses were applied to determine the optimal risk model and area under curve (AUC) were calculated.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
