Educational tools may turn into decision-making strategies in clinical practice – The case of primary percutaneous coronary intervention risk scores

Le résumé fourni par la source

Early and accurate risk stratification in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in general, and an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in particular, is of critical importance [1]. To this end, several clinical risk scores have been developed in order to improve risk factor characterization at admission and to select those patients that should be treated immediately with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [2]. Some clinical risk scores have been developed specifically for use in patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department such as the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin), the T-MACS (Troponin only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome Decision Aid, and the EDACS (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score) scores, while others have been derived from patients with documented ACS, such as the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Risk predictor) and the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) risk scores [1,2].

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.