摘要
Acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST elevation are usually treated with emergency reperfusion/revascularisation therapy. In contrast current evidence and national guidelines recommend risk stratification for non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction(NSTEMI) with the decision on revascularisation dependent on perceived clinical risk. Risk stratification for STEMI has no recommendation. Statistical risk scoring techniques in NSTEMI have been demonstrated to improve outcomes however their uptake has been poor perhaps due to questions over their discrimination and concern for application to individuals who may not have been adequately represented in clinical trials. STEMI is perceived to carry sufficient risk to warrant emergency coronary intervention [by primary percutaneous coronary intervention(PPCI)] even if this results in a delay to reperfusion with immediate thrombolysis. Immediate thrombolysis may be as effective in patients presenting early, or at low risk, but physicians are poor at assessing clinical and procedural risks and currently are not required to consider this. Inadequate data on risk stratification in STEMI inhibits the option of immediate fibrinolysis, which may be cost-effective. Currently the mode of reperfusion for STEMI defaults to emergency angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention ignoring alternative strategies. This review article examines the current risk scores and evidence base for risk stratification for STEMI patients. The requirements for an ideal STEMI risk score are discussed.
Acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST elevation are usually treated with emergency reperfusion/revascularisation therapy. In contrast current evidence and national guidelines recommend risk stratification for non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction(NSTEMI) with the decision on revascularisation dependent on perceived clinical risk. Risk stratification for STEMI has no recommendation. Statistical risk scoring techniques in NSTEMI have been demonstrated to improve outcomes however their uptake has been poor perhaps due to questions over their discrimination and concern for application to individuals who may not have been adequately represented in clinical trials. STEMI is perceived to carry sufficient risk to warrant emergency coronary intervention [by primary percutaneous coronary intervention(PPCI)] even if this results in a delay to reperfusion with immediate thrombolysis. Immediate thrombolysis may be as effective in patients presenting early, or at low risk, but physicians are poor at assessing clinical and procedural risks and currently are not required to consider this. Inadequate data on risk stratification in STEMI inhibits the option of immediate fibrinolysis, which may be cost-effective. Currently the mode of reperfusion for STEMI defaults to emergency angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention ignoring alternative strategies. This review article examines the current risk scores and evidence base for risk stratification for STEMI patients. The requirements for an ideal STEMI risk score are discussed.
