Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Coronary angiographic scoring systems to predict prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, contributing to nearly 1.8 million deaths annually. Quantifying the severity of CAD is essential for risk stratification and managing CAD patients. The degree of CAD can affect a patient's chances of receiving medical care or going straight for revascularization. Revascularization may be more beneficial for patients with more severe CAD, but they also have a worse prognosis. There is a correlation between the severity of CAD and a higher risk of complications during revascularization treatment. Clinical outcomes after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can be predicted by the final infarct size, determined by the complex interplay of several factors, including the duration of myocardial ischemia, the presence of collateral blood supply, reperfusion injury, and the jeopardized left ventricular myocardium. Therapies aimed at restoring myocardial perfusion and/or limiting damage, either mechanically or pharmacologically, can be assessed by measuring the absolute final infarct size.

Coronary angiography is still the preferred method for diagnosing and treating CAD; therefore, various angiographic scoring systems have been suggested to quantify the severity of CAD. However, the existing angiographic scores vary in their ease of use, applicability, and level of predictive validity, thus warranting further studies in the future. 

References

  1. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Vol. 39, European Heart Journal. Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 119–77.
  2. Morton GDJ, De Silva K, Ishida M, Chiribiri A, Indermuehle A, Schuster A, et al. Validation of the BCIS-1 Myocardial Jeopardy score using cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2013;33(2):101–8.
  3. De Palma R, Sörensson P, Verouhis D, Pernow J, Saleh N. Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: A comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2017 Jul 27;19(1).
  4. Neeland IJ, Patel RS, Eshtehardi P, Dhawan S, McDaniel MC, Rab ST, et al. Coronary angiographic scoring systems: An evaluation of their equivalence and validity. Am Heart J. 2012;164(4):547–52.
  5. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Bauersachs J, Dendale P, Edvardsen T, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Vol. 42, European Heart Journal. Oxford University Press; 2021. p. 1289–367.
  6. Ortiz-Pérez JT, Meyers SN, Lee DC, Kansal P, Klocke FJ, Holly TA, et al. Angiographic estimates of myocardium at risk during acute myocardial infarction: Validation study using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J. 2007 Jun;28(14):1750–8.
  7. Moral S, Rodríguez-Palomares JF, Descalzo M, Martí G, Pineda V, Otaegui I, et al. Quantification of Myocardial Area at Risk: Validation of Coronary Angiographic Scores With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Methods. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition). 2012 Nov;65(11):1010–7.
  8. Graham MM, Faris PD, Ghali WA, Galbraith PD, Norris CM, Badry JT, et al. Validation of three myocardial jeopardy scores in a population-based cardiac catheterization cohort. Am Heart J. 2001;142(2):254–62.
  9. Dash H, Johnson RA, Dinsmore RE, Harthorne JW. Cardiomyopathic syndrome due to coronary artery disease’ I. Relation to angiographic extent of coronary disease and to remote myocardial infarction. Vol. 39, British Heart Journal. 1977.
  10. Califf RM, Phillips HR, Hindman MC, Mark DB, Lee KL, Behar VS, et al. Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol [Internet]. 1985;5(5):1055–63. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(85)80005-X
  11. De Silva K, Morton G, Sicard P, Chong E, Indermuehle A, Clapp B, et al. Prognostic utility of BCIS myocardial jeopardy score for classification of coronary disease burden and completeness of revascularization. American Journal of Cardiology. 2013;111(2):172–7.
  12. Willerson JT. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation. 1996;94(6):1194.
  13. Alderman EL, Kip KE, Whitlow PL, Bashore T, Fortin D, Bourassa MG, et al. Native coronary disease progression exceeds failed revascularization as cause of angina after five years in the bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation (BARI). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(4):766–74.
  14. Knudtson M. Coronary Scoring Systems. ApproachOrg [Internet]. 2008;1–32. Available from: http://www.approach.org/images/CorScorTut/History_of_Coronary_Scoring.pdf
  15. Wang Y, Lv Q, Li Y, Chen S, Zhao L, Fu G, et al. Gensini score values for predicting periprocedural myocardial infarction: An observational study analysis. Medicine (United States). 2022 Jul 22;101(29).
  16. Gensini GG. A more meaningful scoring system for determining the severity of coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol [Internet]. 1983 Feb 1 [cited 2023 Feb 18];51(3):606. Available from: http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002914983801052/fulltext
  17. Rampidis GP, Benetos G, Benz DC, Giannopoulos AA, Buechel RR. A guide for Gensini Score calculation. Vol. 287, Atherosclerosis. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2019. p. 181–3.
  18. Alidoosti M, Shafiee A, Salarifar M, Poorhosseini H, Nematipour E, Safarian H. The SYNTAX score can predict major adverse cardiac events following percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart Views. 2014;15(4):99.
  19. Morel M, Kappetein AP, Mc E, Colombo A, Sianos G, Morel M-A, et al. The SYNTAX Score: An angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease [Internet]. Rotterdam; 2005. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26816591
  20. Sullivan DR, Marwick TH, Ben Freedman SM. A new method of scoring coronary angiograms to reflect extent of coronary atherosclerosis and improve correlation with major risk factors.
  21. Javed F, Aziz EF, Nadkarni GN, Khan SA, Sabharwal MS, Malhan R, et al. The association of the Friesinger score and pulse pressure in an urban South Asian patient population: Pulse pressure, an independent predictor of coronary artery disease. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension. 2010 May;4(3):142–7.
  22. Jenkins PJ, Harper RW, Nestel PJ. Severity of coronary atherosclerosis related to lipoprotein concentration Introduction Recent epidemiological studies have elucidated the importance of individual lipoproteins in predicting future clinical coronary. Vol. 282, Journal of Clinical Investiga-tion. Academic Press; 1970.
  23. Leaman DM, Brower RW, Meester GT, Serruys P, van den Brand M. Coronary Artery Atherosclerosis: Severity of the Disease, Severity of Angina Pectoris and Compromised Left Ventricular Function [Internet]. 1981. Available from: http://ahajournals.org

How to Cite

Rosmaningtyas, C. A. A., & Rampengan, S. H. (2024). Coronary angiographic scoring systems to predict prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Intisari Sains Medis, 15(1), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.15562/ism.v15i1.1953

HTML
0

Total
0

Share

Search Panel

Christina Ayu Ariani Rosmaningtyas
Google Scholar
Pubmed
ISM Journal


Starry Homenta Rampengan
Google Scholar
Pubmed
ISM Journal