Advertisement

External validation of the TIMI risk score for secondary cardiovascular events among patients with recent myocardial infarction

      Highlights

      • Validation of the TIMI risk score for 2° prevention (TRS2˚P) in recent MI was performed.
      • The TRS2˚P showed acceptable discrimination in non-trial, real-world patients.
      • The TRS2˚P underestimated absolute risk in non-trial, real-world patients.
      • High risk patients as identified by the TRS2˚P may warrant additional therapy.

      Abstract

      Background and aims

      Risk stratification of patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI) for subsequent cardiovascular (CV) events helps identify patients most likely to benefit from secondary prevention therapies. This study externally validated a new risk score (TRS2˚P) for secondary events derived from the TRA2°P-TIMI 50 trial among post-MI patients from two large health care systems.

      Methods

      This retrospective cohort study included 9618 patients treated for acute MI at either the Cleveland Clinic (CC) or Geisinger Health System (GHS) between 2008 and 2013. Patients with a clinic visit within 2–52 weeks of MI were included and followed for CV death, repeat MI, and ischemic stroke through electronic medical records (EMR). The TRS2˚P is based on nine factors determined through EMR documentation. Discrimination and calibration of the TRS2˚P were quantified in both patient populations.

      Results

      MI patients at CC and GHS were older, had more comorbidities, received fewer medications, and had higher 3-year event rates compared to subjects in the TRA2°P trial: 31% (CC), 33% (GHS), and 10% (TRA2°P-TIMI 50). The proposed risk score had similar discrimination across the three cohorts with c-statistics of 0.66 (CC), 0.66 (GHS), and 0.67 (TRA2°P-TIMI 50). A strong graded relationship between the risk score and event rates was observed in all cohorts, though 3-year event rates were consistently higher within TRS2°P strata in the CC and GHS cohorts relative to TRA2˚P-TIMI 50.

      Conclusions

      The TRS2˚P demonstrated consistent risk discrimination across trial and non-trial patients with recent MI, but event rates were consistently higher in the non-trial cohorts.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Atherosclerosis
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nakatani D.
        • Sakata Y.
        • Suna S.
        • et al.
        Incidence, predictors, and subsequent mortality risk of recurrent myocardial infarction in patients following discharge for acute myocardial infarction.
        Circ. J. 2013; 77: 439-446
        • Schmidt M.
        • Jacobsen J.B.
        • Lash T.L.
        • Botker H.E.
        • Sorensen H.T.
        25 year trends in first time hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction, subsequent short and long term mortality, and the prognostic impact of sex and comorbidity: a Danish nationwide cohort study.
        BMJ. 2012; 344 (e356)
        • Fox K.A.
        • Carruthers K.F.
        • Dunbar D.R.
        • et al.
        Underestimated and under-recognized: the late consequences of acute coronary syndrome (GRACE UK-Belgian Study).
        Eur. Heart J. 2010; 31: 2755-2764
        • Yeh R.W.
        • Sidney S.
        • Chandra M.
        • Sorel M.
        • Selby J.V.
        • Go A.S.
        Population trends in the incidence and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2010; 362: 2155-2165
        • Morrow D.A.
        Cardiovascular risk prediction in patients with stable and unstable coronary heart disease.
        Circulation. 2010; 121: 2681-2691
        • Antoni M.L.
        • Hoogslag G.E.
        • Boden H.
        • et al.
        Cardiovascular mortality and heart failure risk score for patients after ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (Data from the Leiden MISSION! Infarct Registry).
        Am. J. Cardiol. 2012; 109: 187-194
        • Battes L.
        • Barendse R.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • et al.
        Development and validation of a cardiovascular risk assessment model in patients with established coronary artery disease.
        Am. J. Cardiol. 2013; 112: 27-33
        • Bavry A.A.
        • Kumbhani D.J.
        • Gong Y.
        • Handberg E.M.
        • Cooper-Dehoff R.M.
        • Pepine C.J.
        Simple integer risk score to determine prognosis of patients with hypertension and chronic stable coronary artery disease.
        J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2013; 2 (e000205)
        • Dorresteijn J.A.
        • Visseren F.L.
        • Wassink A.M.
        • et al.
        Development and validation of a prediction rule for recurrent vascular events based on a cohort study of patients with arterial disease: the SMART risk score.
        Heart. 2013; 99: 866-872
        • Goliasch G.
        • Kleber M.E.
        • Richter B.
        • et al.
        Routinely available biomarkers improve prediction of long-term mortality in stable coronary artery disease: the Vienna and Ludwigshafen Coronary Artery Disease (VILCAD) risk score.
        Eur. Heart J. 2012; 33: 2282-2289
        • Plakht Y.
        • Shiyovich A.
        • Weitzman S.
        • Fraser D.
        • Zahger D.
        • Gilutz H.
        Soroka acute myocardial infarction (SAMI) score predicting 10-year mortality following acute myocardial infarction.
        Int. J. Cardiol. 2013; 167: 3068-3070
        • Plakht Y.
        • Shiyovich A.
        • Weitzman S.
        • Fraser D.
        • Zahger D.
        • Gilutz H.
        A new risk score predicting 1- and 5-year mortality following acute myocardial infarction Soroka Acute Myocardial Infarction (SAMI) Project.
        Int. J. Cardiol. 2012; 154: 173-179
        • Wilson P.W.
        • D'Agostino Sr., R.
        • Bhatt D.L.
        • et al.
        An international model to predict recurrent cardiovascular disease.
        Am. J. Med. 2012; 125 (e1): 695-703
        • Beatty A.L.
        • Ku I.A.
        • Bibbins-Domingo K.
        • et al.
        Traditional risk factors versus biomarkers for prediction of secondary events in patients with stable coronary heart disease: from the heart and soul study.
        J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2015; 4 (e001646)
        • Yap Y.G.
        • Duong T.
        • Bland M.
        • et al.
        Potential demographic and baselines variables for risk stratification of high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients in the era of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator–a prognostic indicator.
        Int. J. Cardiol. 2008; 126: 101-107
        • Morrow D.A.
        • Braunwald E.
        • Bonaca M.P.
        • et al.
        Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366: 1404-1413
        • Bohula E.A.
        • Bonaca M.P.
        • Braunwald E.
        • et al.
        Atherothrombotic risk stratification and the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial infarction.
        Circulation. 2016; 134: 304-313
        • Liebeskind D.S.
        • Kidwell C.S.
        • Sayre J.W.
        • Saver J.L.
        Evidence of publication bias in reporting acute stroke clinical trials.
        Neurology. 2006; 67: 973-979
        • Moons K.G.
        • Kengne A.P.
        • Woodward M.
        • et al.
        Risk prediction models: I. Development, internal validation, and assessing the incremental value of a new (bio)marker.
        Heart. 2012; 98: 683-690
        • Main J.
        Using research findings in clinical practice. Doctors advocating evidence based medicine may be out of touch with real medicine.
        BMJ. 1999; 318: 332
        • Collins G.S.
        • de Groot J.A.
        • Dutton S.
        • et al.
        External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting.
        BMC Med. Res. Meth. 2014; 14: 40
        • Moons K.G.
        • Kengne A.P.
        • Grobbee D.E.
        • et al.
        Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment.
        Heart. 2012; 98: 691-698
        • Bohula E.A.
        • Morrow D.A.
        • Giugliano R.P.
        • et al.
        Atherothrombotic risk stratification and ezetimibe for secondary prevention.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017; 69: 911-921
        • Scirica B.M.
        • Bonaca M.P.
        • Braunwald E.
        • et al.
        Vorapaxar for secondary prevention of thrombotic events for patients with previous myocardial infarction: a prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRA 2 degrees P-TIMI 50 trial.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 1317-1324
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Vickers A.J.
        • Cook N.R.
        • et al.
        Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures.
        Epidemiology. 2010; 21: 128-138
        • Gerds T.A.
        • Schumacher M.
        Consistent estimation of the expected Brier score in general survival models with right-censored event times.
        Biom. J. 2006; 48: 1029-1040
        • Graf E.
        • Schmoor C.
        • Sauerbrei W.
        • Schumacher M.
        Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data.
        Stat. Med. 1999; 18: 2529-2545
        • Bahit M.C.
        • Cannon C.P.
        • Antman E.M.
        • et al.
        Direct comparison of characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients enrolled versus patients not enrolled in a clinical trial at centers participating in the TIMI 9 Trial and TIMI 9 Registry.
        Am. Heart J. 2003; 145: 109-117
        • Bjorklund E.
        • Lindahl B.
        • Stenestrand U.
        • et al.
        Outcome of ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis in the unselected population is vastly different from samples of eligible patients in a large-scale clinical trial.
        Am. Heart J. 2004; 148: 566-573
        • Brown N.
        • Melville M.
        • Gray D.
        • et al.
        Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysis.
        Heart. 1999; 81: 598-602
        • Bueno H.
        • Fernandez-Aviles F.
        Use of risk scores in acute coronary syndromes.
        Heart. 2012; 98: 162-168
        • Jha P.
        • Deboer D.
        • Sykora K.
        • Naylor C.D.
        Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1996; 27: 1335-1342
        • Riley R.D.
        • Ensor J.
        • Snell K.I.
        • et al.
        External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges.
        BMJ. 2016; 353: i3140