Prognostic value of the CADILLAC risk score in patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
Main Article Content
Abstract
This retrospective cohort study included 350 patients (median age 66 years old, 56.3% male) with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); the study was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of the CADILLAC risk score for in-hospital mortality. The in-hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. Compared with survivors, non-survivors more frequently were > 65 years old, had prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, Killip class ≥ II, estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, anemia, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, and higher CADILLAC and GRACE scores. Risk stratification using the CADILLAC score showed that 81.8% of deaths occurred in the high-risk group, while no death observed in the low-risk group. The CADILLAC score exhibited reasonably good discriminatory ability for in-hospital mortality (AUC = 0.890; 95% CI: 0.852 – 0.921); at a cutoff > 11, sensitivity was 77.8%, specificity 95.0%, positive predictive value 29.2%, and negative predictive value 98.8%. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the CADILLAC score was independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Within the context of a single-center study with a moderate sample size and a low number of in-hospital death events, these findings suggest that the CADILLAC score has potential to be a useful adjunct tool for early in-hospital risk stratification in NSTE-ACS patients undergoing PCI.
Article Details
Keywords
CADILLAC risk score, in-hospital mortality, non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, prognosis, risk stratification
References
2. Darling CE, Fisher KA, McManus DD, et al. Survival after hospital discharge for ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: A Population-based study. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5(1):229-236. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S45646
3. Rao SV, O’Donoghue ML, Ruel M, et al. 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2025;151(13):e771-e862. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001309
4. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(38):3720-3826. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191
5. Phạm Ngọc Lâm, Phạm Lê Minh, Phạm Minh Tuấn. Giá trị tiên lượng của thang điểm TIMI, GRACE, CADILLAC trên bệnh nhân nhồi máu cơ tim cấp ST chênh lên có kèm đái tháo đường. Tạp chí Tim mạch học Việt Nam. 2022;99:89-94.
6. Kao YT, Hsieh YC, Hsu CY, et al. Comparison of the TIMI, GRACE, PAMI and CADILLAC risk scores for prediction of long-term cardiovascular outcomes in Taiwanese diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: From the registry of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229186. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229186
7. Sato T, Saito Y, Matsumoto T, et al. Impact of CADILLAC and GRACE risk scores on short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiol. 2021;78(3):201-205. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.04.005
8. Chen CW, Hsieh YC, Hsieh MH, Lin YK, Huang CY, Yeh JS. Predictive Power of In-Hospital and Long-Term Mortality of the GRACE, TIMI, Revised CADILLAC and PAMI Score in NSTEMI Patients with Diabetes - Data from TSOC ACS-DM Registry. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2020;36(6):595-602. doi:10.6515/ACS.202011_36(6).20200326A
9. Phan TH, Trinh TH, Vu MN. The CADILLAC Score in Predicting In-hospital Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. African J Biomed Res. 2024;27(3s):4254-4260.
10. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Eur Heart J. 2019;40(3):237-269. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy462
11. Halkin A, Singh M, Nikolsky E, et al. Prediction of mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: The CADILLAC risk score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(9):1397-1405. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.041
12. World Health Organization. Nutritional anaemias: report of a WHO scientific group [meeting held in Geneva from 13 to 17 March 1967]. World Heal Organ - Tech Rep Ser. 1968;405:5-37.
13. Reynolds HR, Shaw LJ, Min JK, et al. Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity. Circulation. 2021;144(13):1024-1038. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049755
14. Fox KAA, Fitzgerald G, Puymirat E, et al. Should patients with acute coronary disease be stratified for management according to their risk? Derivation, external validation and outcomes using the updated GRACE risk score. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004425. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004425. Available from: https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/1099/grace-acs-risk-mortality-calculator/.
15. Méndez-Eirín E, Flores-Ríos X, García-López F, et al. Comparison of the prognostic predictive value of the TIMI, PAMI, CADILLAC, and GRACE risk scores in STEACS undergoing primary or rescue PCI. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2012;65(3):227-233. doi:10.1016/j.rec.2011.10.021
16. Çorbacıoğlu ŞK, Aksel G. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic accuracy studies: A guide to interpreting the area under the curve value. Turkish J Emerg Med. 2023;23(4):195-198. doi:10.4103/tjem.tjem