The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making.

Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 08/2000; 284(7):835-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) (UA/NSTEMI) present with a wide spectrum of risk for death and cardiac ischemic events.
To develop a simple risk score that has broad applicability, is easily calculated at patient presentation, does not require a computer, and identifies patients with different responses to treatments for UA/NSTEMI.
Two phase 3, international, randomized, double-blind trials (the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] 11B trial [August 1996-March 1998] and the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Unstable Angina and Non-Q-Wave MI trial [ESSENCE; October 1994-May 1996]). A total of 1957 patients with UA/NSTEMI were assigned to receive unfractionated heparin (test cohort) and 1953 to receive enoxaparin in TIMI 11B; 1564 and 1607 were assigned respectively in ESSENCE. The 3 validation cohorts were the unfractionated heparin group from ESSENCE and both enoxaparin groups.
The TIMI risk score was derived in the test cohort by selection of independent prognostic variables using multivariate logistic regression, assignment of value of 1 when a factor was present and 0 when it was absent, and summing the number of factors present to categorize patients into risk strata. Relative differences in response to therapeutic interventions were determined by comparing the slopes of the rates of events with increasing score in treatment groups and by testing for an interaction between risk score and treatment. Outcomes were TIMI risk score for developing at least 1 component of the primary end point (all-cause mortality, new or recurrent MI, or severe recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization) through 14 days after randomization.
The 7 TIMI risk score predictor variables were age 65 years or older, at least 3 risk factors for coronary artery disease, prior coronary stenosis of 50% or more, ST-segment deviation on electrocardiogram at presentation, at least 2 anginal events in prior 24 hours, use of aspirin in prior 7 days, and elevated serum cardiac markers. Event rates increased significantly as the TIMI risk score increased in the test cohort in TIMI 11B: 4.7% for a score of 0/1; 8.3% for 2; 13. 2% for 3; 19.9% for 4; 26.2% for 5; and 40.9% for 6/7 (P<.001 by chi(2) for trend). The pattern of increasing event rates with increasing TIMI risk score was confirmed in all 3 validation groups (P<.001). The slope of the increase in event rates with increasing numbers of risk factors was significantly lower in the enoxaparin groups in both TIMI 11B (P =.01) and ESSENCE (P =.03) and there was a significant interaction between TIMI risk score and treatment (P =. 02).
In patients with UA/NSTEMI, the TIMI risk score is a simple prognostication scheme that categorizes a patient's risk of death and ischemic events and provides a basis for therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835-842

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies suggested that diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD) is more difficult in women than in men. Studies investigating the predictive value of clinical signs and symptoms and compare its combined diagnostic value between women and men are lacking. Data from a large multicenter prospective study was used. Patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain but without ST-elevation were eligible. The endpoint was proven CAD, defined as a significant stenosis at angiography or the diagnosis of a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within six weeks after presentation at the ED. Twelve clinical symptoms and seven cardiovascular risk factors were collected. Potential predictors of CAD with a p-value <0.15 in the univariable analysis were included in a multivariable model. The diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors was quantified in women and men separately and areas under the curve (AUC) were compared between sexes. A total of 2433 patients were included. We excluded 102 patients (4%) with either an incomplete follow up or ST-elevation. Of the remaining 2331 patients 43% (1003) were women. CAD was present in 111 (11%) women and 278 (21%) men. In women 11 out of 12 and in men 10 out of 12 clinical symptoms were univariably associated with CAD. The AUC of symptoms alone was 0.74 (95%CI: 0.69-0.79) in women and 0.71 (95%CI: 0.68-0.75) in men and increased to respectively 0.79 (95%CI: 0.74-0.83) in women versus 0.75 (95%CI: 0.72-0.78) in men after adding cardiovascular risk factors. The AUCs of women and men were not significantly different (p-value symptoms alone: 0.45, after adding cardiovascular risk factors: 0.11). The diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors for the diagnosis of CAD in chest pain patients presenting on the ED was high in women and men. No significant differences were found between sexes.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(1):e0116431. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Italian Elderly ACS study was the first randomized controlled trial comparing an early aggressive with an initially conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes aged ≥75 years, with the results showing no significant benefit of early aggressive therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of trial patients, according to the treatment actually received during hospitalization. The trial enrolled 313 patients. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), disabling stroke, and repeat hospital stay for cardiovascular causes or bleeding within 1 year. All patients in whom coronary angiography was performed during initial hospitalization were defined as having undergone invasive treatment (182 patients), whereas all patients who did not undergo coronary angiography were classified as medically managed (conservative treatment [CT] group, 131 patients). The primary end point occurred in 53 patients (40.5%) in the CT group and 45 patients (24.7%) in the invasive treatment group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.83, p = 0.003). The invasive treatment group showed significantly lower rates of MI (6% vs 13% in the CT group; hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92, p = 0.034) and the aggregate of death and MI (14.3% vs 27.5% CT group; hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated invasively experienced significantly better survival free from the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, disabling stroke, and repeat hospitalization for cardiovascular causes or bleeding. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The American journal of cardiology. 12/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies have attempted to demonstrate that the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score has the ability to risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with potential acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Most of the studies we reviewed relied on trained research investigators to determine TIMI risk scores rather than ED providers functioning in their normal work capacity. We assessed whether TIMI risk scores obtained by ED providers in the setting of a busy ED differed from those obtained by trained research investigators. This was an ED-based prospective observational cohort study comparing TIMI scores obtained by 49 ED providers admitting patients to an ED chest pain unit (CPU) to scores generated by a team of trained research investigators. We examined provider type, patient gender, and TIMI elements for their effects on TIMI risk score discrepancy. Of the 501 adult patients enrolled in the study, 29.3% of TIMI risk scores determined by ED providers and trained research investigators were generated using identical TIMI risk score variables. In our low-risk population the majority of TIMI risk score differences were small; however, 12% of TIMI risk scores differed by two or more points. TIMI risk scores determined by ED providers in the setting of a busy ED frequently differ from scores generated by trained research investigators who complete them while not under the same pressure of an ED provider.
    The western journal of emergency medicine 01/2015; 16(1):24-33.

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
Nov 27, 2014