Evaluating the Performance of the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) bleeding score in a contemporary Spanish cohort of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

Circulation. 2010 Jun 8;121(22):2419-26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.925594. Epub 2010 May 24.

Abstract

Background: The Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) model provides a risk score that predicts the likelihood of major bleeding in patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the performance of this model in a contemporary cohort of patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction in Spain.

Methods and results: The study subjects were 782 consecutive patients admitted to our center between February 2004 and June 2009 with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. For each patient, we calculated the CRUSADE risk score and evaluated its discrimination and calibration by the C statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. The performance of the CRUSADE risk score was evaluated for the patient population as a whole and for groups of patients treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotic medications and who underwent cardiac catheterization or not. The median CRUSADE score was 30 points (range, 18 to 45). A total of 657 patients (84%) were treated with >or=2 antithrombotic, of whom 609 (92.7%) underwent cardiac catheterization. The overall incidence of major bleeding was 9.5%. This incidence increased with the risk category: very low, 1.5%; low, 4.3%; moderate, 7.8%; high, 11.8%; and very high, 28.9% (P<0.001). For the patients as a whole, for the groups treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics, and for the subgroup treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who did or did not undergo cardiac catheterization, the CRUSADE score showed adequate calibration and excellent discriminatory capacity (Hosmer-Lemeshow P>0.3 and C values of 0.82, 0.80, 0.70, and 0.80, respectively). However, it showed little capacity to discriminate bleeding risk in patients treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who did not undergo cardiac catheterization (C=0.56).

Conclusions: The CRUSADE risk score was generally validated and found to be useful in a Spanish cohort of patients treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics and in those treated with or without >or=2 antithrombotics who underwent cardiac catheterization. More studies are needed to clarify the validity of the CRUSADE score in the subgroup treated with >or=2 antithrombotics who do not undergo cardiac catheterization.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Angina, Unstable / complications
  • Angina, Unstable / diagnosis
  • Angina, Unstable / therapy*
  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary / standards
  • Cohort Studies
  • Female
  • Fibrinolytic Agents / therapeutic use
  • Health Planning Guidelines*
  • Hemorrhage / complications
  • Hemorrhage / diagnosis
  • Hemorrhage / therapy*
  • Hospitalization
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction / complications
  • Myocardial Infarction / diagnosis
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Severity of Illness Index*
  • Spain
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Fibrinolytic Agents