Clinical risk scores identify more patients at risk for cardiovascular events within 30 days as compared to standard ACS risk criteria: the WESTCOR study

AIMS Troponin-based algorithms are made to identify myocardial infarctions (MIs) but adding either standard acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk criteria or a clinical risk score may identify more patients eligible for early discharge and patients in need of urgent revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS Post-hoc analysis of the WESTCOR study including 932 patients (mean 63 years, 61% male) with suspected NSTE-ACS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 3, and 8-12 h and high-sensitivity cTnT (Roche Diagnostics) and cTnI (Abbott Diagnostics) were analysed. The primary endpoint was MI, all-cause mortality, and unplanned revascularizations within 30 days. Secondary endpoint was non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during index hospitalization. Two combinations were compared: troponin-based algorithms (ESC 0/3 h and the High-STEACS algorithm) and either ACS risk criteria recommended in the ESC guidelines, or one of eleven clinical risk scores, HEART, mHEART, CARE, GRACE, T-MACS, sT-MACS, TIMI, EDACS, sEDACS, Goldman, and Geleijnse-Sanchis. The prevalence of primary events was 21%. Patients ruled out for NSTEMI and regarded low risk of ACS according to ESC guidelines had 3.8-4.9% risk of an event, primarily unplanned revascularizations. Using HEART score instead of ACS risk criteria reduced the number of events to 2.2-2.7%, with maintained efficacy. The secondary endpoint was met by 13%. The troponin-based algorithms without evaluation of ACS risk missed three-index NSTEMIs with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.5% and 99.6%. CONCLUSION Combining ESC 0/3 h or the High-STEACS algorithm with standardized clinical risk scores instead of ACS risk criteria halved the prevalence of rule-out patients in need of revascularization, with maintained efficacy.