Modern NCDR and ACTION risk models outperform the GRACE model for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome in a German cohort

Background and purpose: Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients.

Methods and results: A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, p_{GRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0} = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; p_ACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; p_GRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (p_GRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, p_{GRACEvsACTION} = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); p_{GRACEvsACTION} = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models.

Conclusions: In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.