0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessBackground ACEF score has been shown to have predictive ability in the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The ACEF II score has recently been developed to predict short-term mortality after cardiac surgery. We compared the predictive ability of the ACEF and ACEF II scores to predict mortality after PCI in the all-comers population. Methods The ACEF and ACEF II scores were calculated in 15,968 patients enrolled in the GLOBAL LEADERS study. Discrimination and calibration were assessed for outcomes after PCI. Recalibration of the regression model by updating the intercept and slope were performed to adjust the original ACEF model to the PCI setting. In a stratified approach, patients were divided into quintiles according to the score. Outcomes were compared between quintiles. Results The ACEF and ACEF II score were available in 14,941 and 14,355 patients respectively. Discrimination for 30-day all-cause mortality was acceptable for both scores (C-statistic ACEF 0.75 and ACEF II 0.77). For 2-year all-cause mortality, the discrimination of ACEF score was acceptable (C-statistic 0.72) while the discrimination of ACEF II score was moderate (C-statistic 0.69). Both scores identified patients at high risk of mortality but overestimated all-cause mortality at 30 days in all quintiles. After recalibration, agreement between predicted and observed 30-day all-cause mortality in both scores are close to the identity line. Conclusions The ACEF II model did not improve the predictive ability of the ACEF score. Recalibrated ACEF model can be used to estimated all-cause mortality rate at 30 days after PCI.
Ply Chichareon, Rodrigo Modolo, David van Klaveren, Kuniaki Takahashi, Norihiro Kogame, Chun‐Chin Chang, Yuki Katagiri, Mariusz Tomaniak, Taku Asano, Ernest Spitzer, Paweł Buszman, Janusz Prokopczuk, Farzin Fath‐Ordoubadi, Ian Buysschaert, Richard Anderson, Keith G. Oldroyd, Béla Merkely, Scot Garg, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Jan J. Piek, Peter Jüni, Christian W. Hamm, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Marco Valgimigli, Pascal Vranckx, Stephan Windecker, Yoshinobu Onuma, Patrick W. Serruys (2019). Predictive ability of ACEF and ACEF II score in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the GLOBAL LEADERS study. International Journal of Cardiology, 286, pp. 43-50, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.02.043.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2019
Authors
28
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
International Journal of Cardiology
DOI
10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.02.043
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access