Flora Özkalaycı Kaçar1, Mehmet Saygı1, Tanıl Özer2, Ali Karagöz2, İbrahim Halil Tanboğa3, Vecih Oduncu4

1Clinic of Cardiology, Hisar Intercontinental Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye
2Clinic of Cardiology, Kartal Koşuyolu Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye
3Department of Biostatistics and Cardiology, Nişantaşı University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye
4Department of Cardiology, Bahçeşehir University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye

Keywords: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; mortality; risk score


Introduction: Although most of the scoring systems are used for long-term mortality assessment in STelevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there is still lack of data comparing model performances. In this study, it was aimed to compare five scoring systems for predicting long-term mortality in patients presented with STEMI.

Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective observational study consisting of 1689 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent PCI between 2009 and 2013. Patient data was obtained from the electronic data base of the hospital. Each patients’ mortality risk was assessed with five different risk scores and recorded.

Results: A total of 1689 patients with STEMI were included into the study. Median follow-up time was one year. Risk scores were calculated for each patient. Although similar statistical significance was presented among all scores, modified age, creatinine clearance, and ejection fraction score (mACEF) were demonstrated to be more significant than relevant scoring systems in clinical respect.

Conclusion: Among five scores, the mACEF score was demonstrated to be the most significant model in clinical respect for the prediction of mortality.

Cite this article as: Özkalaycı Kaçar F, Saygı M, Özer T, Karagöz A, Tanboğa İH, Oduncu V. Comparison of the performance of five different scoring systems in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Koşuyolu Heart J 2023;26(1):20-26.

Ethics Committee Approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Kartal Koşuyolu High Specialization Training and Research Hospital Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision no: 2022/13/626, Date: 06.09.2022).

Peer Review

Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions

Concept/Design - FÖK; Analysis/Interpretation - İHT, AK; Data Collection - TÖ, MS; Writing - VO; Critical Revision - AK; Statistical Analysis - İHT; Overall Responsibility - FÖK.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Financial Disclosure

The authors declare that this study has received no financial support.