Curriculum in CardiologyIntegrating the Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score into practice: Use, pitfalls, and new directions
Section snippets
SYNTAX score calculation
The SYNTAX score is calculated based on the American Heart Association classification of the coronary artery tree modified by the ARTS investigators.1, 3, 4 This classification scheme divides the coronary tree into 16 segments that are differently depicted based on the presence of a right or left dominant coronary system. Each of these segments is attributed a multiplicative weighting factor similar to the Leaman score5 according to the relative blood flow supplied to the left ventricle.
Issues relevant to the real-world validation of the SYNTAX score
Validating and investigating the predictive accuracy of a prognostic model requires careful consideration of a number of variables. First, open issues include the optimal cutoff to distinguish the subgroup of patients at highest risk and the number of strata to be considered. Second, the use and cutoff values of the score may be different in patients with 1- and 2-vessel disease, 3-vessel disease, or left main disease. Third, there are no evidence demonstrating that the SYNTAX score is linearly
SYNTAX score in left main and multivessel disease
Table I summarizes the results of studies assessing the SYNTAX score in left main patients, treated either percutaneously or surgically.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 In the SYNTAX trial, the 24-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) among patients treated with PCI in the left main cohort indicated differential survival rates in the anticipated order across tertiles (SI = 0.142), with a balanced rapport between those at intermediate risk and those at low
Combinations of SYNTAX score and clinical variables
A limitation of the SYNTAX score relies in the fact that the score algorithm does not entail any clinical variable. Comorbidities are known to impact early outcomes of patients undergoing CABG, but a role in worsening the operative morbidity of patients undergoing PCI cannot be ruled out.18, 19 For example, it is reasonable that patients with similar SYNTAX score may experience very different procedural outcomes according to their diabetes or chronic kidney disease status, emergent
SYNTAX score for aiding patients selection in left main revascularization
The above data corroborate the understanding that clinical outcomes of PCI patients vary appreciably, with incremental impact across SYNTAX score tertiles. Conversely, CABG seems less susceptible to the SYNTAX score variations (Figure 1). This is in line with the observation that CABG bypasses the lesion rather than directly treats it; hence, lesion complexity does not represent per se a reason for higher risk of clinical events.26 Another consideration that may be drawn from the data provided
SYNTAX score in randomized clinical trials
The SYNTAX score offers an attractive opportunity for stratifying patients included into randomized controlled trials of novel revascularization options. By prospectively dividing patients into categories of angiographic risk, comparisons of different devices may generate hypotheses to be tested in subsequent, adequately powered trials. For example, the forthcoming Evaluation of Xience Prime versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial
Pitfalls and issues relevant to SYNTAX score application in clinical practice
Several issues have emerged that need to be addressed in the forthcoming versions of the SYNTAX score. First, the score algorithm does not include subsets of lesions frequently observed in the growing population of patients with previous revascularization submitted to the catheterization laboratory such as in-stent restenosis and stenotic bypass grafts. Patent bypass grafts, coronary anomalies, muscular bridges, and aneurysms also make the calculation of the SYNTAX score less obvious. In the
Conclusions
Risk stratification by means of risk scores denotes a simplicistic approach if criteria for selecting the appropriate strategy do not also include a broad array of considerations dealing with the so-called Heart Team approach, including a comprehensive overview of PCI results, CABG results, preference of the patient, comorbidities, social, economic, cultural conditions and, last but not least, lesion characteristics. In this context, the semiquantitative SYNTAX score helps in prospectively
Disclosures
Conflict of interest: none reported.
References (31)
- et al.
Validation of SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score for prediction of outcomes after unprotected left main coronary revascularization
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv
(2010) - et al.
Long-term clinical results following stenting of the left main stem
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv
(2010) - et al.
Usefulness of SYNTAX score to select patients with left main coronary artery disease to be treated with coronary artery bypass graft
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
(2009) - et al.
Cyphering the complexity of coronary artery disease using the SYNTAX score to predict clinical outcome in patients with three-vessel lumen obstruction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
Am J Cardiol
(2007) - et al.
EuroSCORE as a predictor of death and myocardial infarction after unprotected left main coronary stenting
Am J Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
EuroSCORE refines the predictive ability of SYNTAX score in patients undergoing left main percutaneous coronary intervention
Am Heart J
(2010) - et al.
Comparison between the NERS (New Risk Stratification) score and the SYNTAX (Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score in outcome prediction for unprotected left main stenting
J Am Coll Cardiol Intv
(2010) - et al.
Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2010) - et al.
The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease
EuroIntervention
(2005) - et al.
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease
N Engl J Med
(2009)
Coronary artery disease reporting system
Circulation
The ARTS study (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study)
Semin Interv Cardiol
Coronary artery atherosclerosis: severity of the disease, severity of angina pectoris and compromised left ventricular function
Circulation
What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?
Stat Med
Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial
Circulation
Cited by (37)
SYNTAX Score in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Coronary Revascularization in the FREEDOM Trial
2018, Journal of the American College of CardiologyRisk Stratification for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
2016, Interventional Cardiology ClinicsIncorporating Glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance by the modification of diet in renal disease equation or the Cockcroft-Gault equations to improve the Global Accuracy of the Age, Creatinine, Ejection Fraction [ACEF] score in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
2013, International Journal of CardiologyCitation Excerpt :Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. The global accuracy of ACEFMDRD, ACEFCG and ACEFSrCr was evaluated in terms of calibration and discrimination, as previously described [1,8]. Briefly, calibration evaluates the degree of correspondence between the estimated probabilities produced by a model and the actual observation.
EuroSCORE II versus additive and logistic EuroSCORE in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
2013, American Journal of CardiologyCitation Excerpt :Both models were characterized by more accurate prediction for mortality at 30 days (Table 4). Risk stratification has gained renewed interest in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention, culminating in explicit recommendations for the use and implementation of clinical and angiographic risk scores in the latest European practice guidelines for myocardial revascularization.8,13 The classic EuroSCORE has been derived from a dataset of nearly 20,000 consecutive patients from 128 hospitals in 8 European countries.1,2