ABC | Volume 115, Nº2, August 2020

Original Article Viana et al. ACS prognosis based on models and outcomes Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(2):219-225 1. Kennedy RL, Harrison RF. Identification of patients with evolving coronary syndromes by using statistical models with data from the time of presentation. Heart. 2006;92(2):183–9. 2. Yadav M, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, Madhavan M V., Sanidas E, Kirtane AJ, et al. Prediction of Coronary Risk by SYNTAX and Derived Scores. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(14):1219–30. 3. Farooq V, Vergouwe Y, Raber L, Vranckx P, Garcia-Garcia H, Diletti R, et al. Combined anatomical and clinical factors for the long-term risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(24):3098–104. 4. Zhang YJ, Iqbal J, Campos CM, Klaveren D V., Bourantas C V., Dawkins KD, et al. Prognostic value of site SYNTAX score and rationale for combining anatomic and clinical factors in decision making: Insights from the SYNTAX trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(5):423–32. 5. FarooqV,VanKlaverenD,SteyerbergEW,MeligaE,VergouweY,ChieffoA,et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decisionmaking between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: Development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):639–50. 6. Viana M dos S, Lopes F, Cerqueira Junior AM dos S, Suerdieck JG, Silva AB da, Silva ACB da, et al. Incremental Prognostic Value of the Incorporation of Clinical Data Into Coronary Anatomy Data in Acute Coronary Syndromes: SYNTAX-GRACE Score. Arq Bras Cardiol.2017;109(6):527-32. 7. Apple FS, Pearce LA, Smith SW, Kaczmarek JM, Murakami MM. Role of monitoring changes in sensitive cardiac troponin I assay results for early diagnosis of myocardial infarction and prediction of risk of adverse events. Clin Chem. 2009;55(5):930–7. 8. Apple FS, Quist HE, Doyle PJ, Otto AP, Murakami MM. Plasma 99th percentile reference limits for cardiac troponin and creatine kinaseMBmass for usewith European Society of Cardiology/AmericanCollege of Cardiology consensus recommendations. Clin Chem. 2003;49(8):1331–6. 9. Sianos G, Morel M-A, Kappetein AP, Morice M-C, Colombo A, Dawkins K, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1(2):219–27. 10. Granger CB, Goldberg RJ, Dabbous O, Pieper KS, Eagle KA, Cannon CP, et al. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Investigators. Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2345–53. 11. Farooq V, Head SJ, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW.Widening clinical applications of the SYNTAX Score. Heart. 2014;100(4):276–87. 12. Glaser R, Selzer F, Faxon DP, Laskey WK, Cohen HA, Slater J, et al. Clinical progression of incidental, asymptomatic lesions discovered during culprit vessel coronary intervention. Circulation. 2005;111(2):143–9. 13. Saka K, Hibi K, Kozuma K, MaejimaN, Okada K, Matsuzawa Y, et al. Relation Between the SYNTAX Score and Culprit Vessel Vulnerability in Non–ST- Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging [Internet]. 2015 Apr;8(4):496–8. 14. Palmerini T, Genereux P, Caixeta A, Cristea E, Lansky A, Mehran R, et al. Prognostic value of the SYNTAX score in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization andUrgent Intervention Triage StrategY) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(24):2389–97. 15. Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, Rosner G, Green P, Dressler O, et al. Quantification and impact of untreated coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention: The residual SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(24):2165–74. 16. Fox KAA, FitzGerald G, Puymirat E, Huang W, Carruthers K, Simon T, et al. Should patients with acute coronary disease be stratified for management according to their risk? Derivation, external validation and outcomes using the updated GRACE risk score. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e004425. 17. Bawamia B, Mehran R, Qiu W, Kunadian V. Risk scores in acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention: A review. Am Heart J. 2013;165(4):441–50. 18. D’Ascenzo F, Biondi-Zoccai G, Moretti C, Bollati M, Omedè P, Sciuto F, et al. TIMI, GRACE and alternative risk scores in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A meta-analysis of 40 derivation studies on 216,552 patients and of 42 validation studies on 31,625 patients. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(3):507–14. 19. Barbosa CE, Viana M, Brito M, Sabino M, Garcia G, Maraux M, et al. Acurácia dos escores GRACE e TIMI na predição da gravidade angiográfica da síndrome coronariana aguda. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012;99(3):818-24. 20. Lacerda YF , BaganoGO, Correia VCA, Lopes FOA, Souza TMB, Fonseca LL, et al. Low accuracy of the grace score for anatomic stratification of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. In: European Society of Cardiology Congress, August 2018, Munich-Germany. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(Suppl):763-4. 21. Avci BK, Ikitimur B, Tok OO, Cimci M, Erturk E, Omar TB, et al. The role of GRACE score in the prediction of high-risk coronary anatomy in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Kardiol Pol. 2015;73(8):592-7. 22. Armstrong PW,Westerhout CM. Composite End Points in Clinical Research: A Time for Reappraisal. Circulation. 2017;135(23):2299–307. References 224