Predicting 1-, 3- and 5-year outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: A comparison of available risk assessment scores

Background and aims Thromboischemic and bleeding events are rare but life-threatening complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Various risk assessment models have been established to predict short- and long-term adverse events in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes (CCS, ACS). The aim of the present study was to compare available risk assessment systems based on their performance in identifying high-risk patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods We enrolled 1565 consecutive patients with symptomatic CAD (n = 821 CCS, n = 744 ACS). CALIBER, DAPT, GRACE 2.0, PARIS-CTE, PARIS-MB, PRECISE-DAPT and PREDICT-STABLE scores were calculated in appropriate patient subgroups. All patients were followed-up for 1, 3 and 5 years for all-cause death (ACD), myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke (IS) and bleeding. The primary combined ischemic endpoint (CE) consisted of ACD, MI and/or IS. Secondary endpoints were defined as single occurrence of either ACD, MI, IS, or bleeding. Results GRACE 2.0 score showed good discrimination performance (AUC>0.7) for CE in a 3- and 5-year follow-up. CALIBER, GRACE 2.0 and PARIS-CTE showed best performance (AUC>0.7) in predicting ACD throughout the follow-up, whereas IS was best predicted by PARIS-CTE and CALIBER scores. None of the scores performed well (AUC>0.7) in predicting MI or bleeding. Conclusions In a consecutive German CAD cohort, CALIBER, GRACE 2.0 and PARIS-CTE scores performed best in predicting CE, ACD and/or IS whereas none of the selected scores could predict MI and bleeding efficiently.