• Alexander D Simms, Stephanie Reynolds, Karen Pieper, Paul D Baxter, Brian A Cattle, Phillip D Batin, John I Wilson, John E Deanfield, Robert M West, Keith A A Fox, Alistair S Hall, and Christopher P Gale.
• Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. simmsy@doctors.org.uk
• Heart. 2013 Jan 1; 99 (1): 35-40.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) mini-Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) (MG) and adjusted mini-GRACE (AMG) risk scores.DesignRetrospective observational study.Setting215 acute hospitals in England and Wales.Patients137 084 patients discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between 2003 and 2009, as recorded in the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP).Main Outcome MeasuresModel performance indices of calibration accuracy, discriminative and explanatory performance, including net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement.ResultsOf 495 263 index patients hospitalised with AMI, there were 53 196 ST elevation myocardial infarction and 83 888 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (27.7%) cases with complete data for all AMG variables. For AMI, AMG calibration was better than MG calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test: p=0.33 vs p<0.05). MG and AMG predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were good (Brier score: 0.10 vs 0.09; C statistic: 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). The NRI of AMG over MG was 8.1% (p<0.05). Model performance was reduced in patients with NSTEMI, chronic heart failure, chronic renal failure and in patients aged ≥85 years.ConclusionsThe AMG and MG risk scores, utilised by NICE, demonstrated good performance across a range of indices using MINAP data, but performed less well in higher risk subgroups. Although indices were better for AMG, its application may be constrained by missing predictors.

25 keywords...

hide…