CatLet score and clinical CatLet score as predictors of long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting later than 12 hours from symptom onset

Abstract

AbstractBackground Our recently developed Coronary Artery Tree description and Lesion EvaluaTion (CatLet) angiographic scoring system is unique in its description of the variability in the coronary anatomy, the degree of stenosis of a diseased coronary artery, and its subtended myocardial territory, and can be utilized to predict clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presenting ≤12 h after symptom onset. The current study aimed to assess whether the Clinical CatLet score (CCS), as compared with CatLet score (CS), better predicted clinical outcomes for AMI patients presenting >12 h after symptom onset.Methods CS was calculated in 1018 consecutive AMI patients enrolled in a retrospective registry. CCS was calculated by multiplying CS by the ACEF I score (age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction). Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 4-year-follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization.Results Over a 4-year follow-up period, both scores were independent predictors of clinical outcomes after adjustment for a broad spectrum of risk factors. Areas-under-the-curve (AUCs) for CS and CCS were 0.72(0.68–0.75) and 0.75(0.71–0.78) for MACEs; 0.68(0.63–0.73) and 0.78(0.74–0.83) for all-cause death; 0.73(0.68–0.79) and 0.83(0.79–0.88) for cardiac death; and 0.69(0.64–0.73) and 0.75(0.7–0.79) for myocardial infarction; and 0.66(0.61–0.7) and 0.63(0.58–0.68) for revascularization, respectively. CCS performed better than CS in terms of the above-mentioned outcome predictions, as confirmed by the net reclassification and integrated discrimination indices.Conclusions CCS was better than CS to be able to risk-stratify long-term outcomes in AMI patients presenting >12 h after symptom onset. These findings have indicated that both anatomic and clinical variables should be considered in decision-making on management of patients with AMI presenting later.

Keywords

• Angiographic scoring
• clinical variables
• coronary artery disease
• prognosis