Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Sep;13(3):112-120.
doi: 10.15420/icr.2018.16.2.

Risk Stratification in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Practical Walkthrough in the Landscape of Prognostic Risk Models

Sergio Buccheri  1   2 , Paolo D'Arrigo  1 , Gabriele Franchina  1 , Davide Capodanno  1
Affiliations
Review

Risk Stratification in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Practical Walkthrough in the Landscape of Prognostic Risk Models

Sergio Buccheri et al. Interv Cardiol. 2018 Sep.

Abstract

Although a combination of multiple strategies to prevent and treat coronary artery disease (CAD) has led to a relative reduction in cardiovascular mortality over recent decades, CAD remains the greatest cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of individual factors and circumstances other than clinical presentation and treatment type contribute to determining the outcome of CAD. It is increasingly understood that personalised medicine, by taking these factors into account, achieves better results than "one-size-fitsall" approaches. In recent years, the multiplication of risk scoring systems for CAD has generated some degree of uncertainty regarding whether, when and how predictive models should be adopted when making clinical decisions. Against this background, this article reviews the most accepted risk models for patients with evidence of CAD to provide practical guidance within the current landscape of tools developed for prognostic risk stratification.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease; clinical outcomes; coronary artery bypass graft; coronary artery bypass grafting discrimination,; guidelines; percutaneous coronary intervention; risk assessment; risk score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. Metrics to Assess the Characteristics of a Risk Score
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Scores for Risk Stratification of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease based on Timing of Assessment and Predicted Risk
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33((13):):1635–701. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013;34((38):):2949–3003. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht296. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buccheri S, Capranzano P, Condorelli A, Scalia M, Tamburino C, Capodanno D. Risk stratification after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2016;14((12):):1349–60. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2017.1256201. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Granton J, Cheng D. Risk stratification models for cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;12((3):):167–74. doi: 10.1177/1089253208323681. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Capodanno D. Beyond the SYNTAX score – advantages and limitations of other risk assessment systems in left main percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ J. 2013;77((5):):1131–8. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-12-1613. - DOI - PubMed