Development and validation of a prognostic score integrating remote heart failure symptoms and clinical variables in mortality risk prediction after myocardial infarction: the PragueMi score
Authors' conclusion
The PragueMi score combining HF symptoms and clinical variables performs better than the currently recommended GRACE score.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive patients hospitalised for myocardial infarction (MI) at a large tertiary heart centre, June 2017–September 2022 (aged 64 ± 12 years, 26.7% women)
- Participants
- 1,135 patients
- Comparison
- PragueMi score vs Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score
- Outcome
- Mortality risk prediction (discrimination, AUC) after MI
- Follow-up
- 6 months and 1 year
Methodological detailsprospectively collected data, consecutive patients, single tertiary heart centre, derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts
- Prospectively collected data
- Consecutive patients
- Single tertiary heart centre
- Derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Mortality risk discrimination (validation cohort) · 6 months
| Test or model | AUC (6 months) | AUC (1 year) |
|---|---|---|
| PragueMi | 90.1 (95% CI 81.8-98.4) | 89.7 (95% CI 83.5-96.0) |
| GRACE | 77.4 (95% CI 62.2-92.5) | 76.2 (95% CI 64.7-87.7) |
AUC (6 months)
PragueMi90.1 (95% CI 81.8-98.4)
GRACE77.4 (95% CI 62.2-92.5)
AUC (1 year)
PragueMi89.7 (95% CI 83.5-96.0)
GRACE76.2 (95% CI 64.7-87.7)
- PragueMi vs GRACE: P = 0.04 — 6 months
- PragueMi vs GRACE: P = 0.004 — 1 year
Original publication
Development and validation of a prognostic score integrating remote heart failure symptoms and clinical variables in mortality risk prediction after myocardial infarction: the PragueMi score. Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 18 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →