ACEF vs PARIS score in Predicting Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the START ANTIPLATELET Registry

Several scores can predict clinical outcomes of patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS). The validated PARIS (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Anti-Platelet Regimen in Stented Patients) score is poorly used in clinical practice because it needs items that are not always easily available. The ACEF (Age, Creatinine, and Ejection Fraction) score is more attractive because it only includes three items. We compared these scores to risk-stratify ACS patients enrolled into the START (Survey on anticoagulated pAtients RegisTer)-ANTIPLATELET registry. ACS patients who completed 1-year follow-up (n = 1171) were grouped in tertiles (low, medium, and high-risk) according to their ACEF/PARIS scores. Primary endpoints were: one-year MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke or target vessel revascularization) and NACE (net adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events): MACCE plus major bleeding). MACCE incidence was higher in the high-risk tertile (15%) VS low/medium (3/7 %) risk tertiles (P < .001). NACE incidence in the high-risk tertile was 24% VS low/medium (9/15 %) risk tertiles (P < .001), independently of the risk score used. The ACEF score has similar accuracy as the validated PARIS score for the estimation of ischemic/bleeding risk. Thereby, we strongly suggest its use in clinical practice to risk-stratify ACS patients and select optimal therapeutic strategies.