Validación del puntaje de riesgo TIMI como predictor de mortalidad en pacientes chilenos con infarto agudo al miocardio con supradesnivel de ST
Author
dc.contributor.author
Ugalde Prieto, Héctor
Author
dc.contributor.author
Yubini Lagos, María Cecilia
Author
dc.contributor.author
Rozas, Sebastián
Author
dc.contributor.author
Sanhueza, María Ignacia
Author
dc.contributor.author
Jara, Hernán
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-05-23T16:37:00Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-05-23T16:37:00Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2017
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Rev Med Chile 2017; 145: 572-578
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
0717-6163
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/148076
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
Background: Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score (TIMI-RS)
was designed to predict early mortality in patients with a ST elevation acute
myocardial infarction (STEAMI). Aim: To evaluate the predictive capacity for
hospital mortality of TIMI-RS. Material and Methods: Patients with ≤ 12-
hour evolution STEAMI were selected from a prospective registry of all patients
hospitalized in our coronary unity within January 1988 and December 2005.
Observed mortality was analyzed according to TIMI-RS and its predictive capacity
was estimated. Results: We analyzed 1125 consecutive patients aged 61 ± 13
years (76% men). Fifty one percent were smokers, 47% hypertensive and 40%
had a history of angina. Fifty eight percent of patients underwent reperfusion
therapy. Most patients had TIMI-RS scores ≤ 5 points and only 3.6% had scores
≥ 10 points. Overall mortality was 14.8% and there was an 80% concordance
between observed mortality and that predicted with the TIMI-RS score. The area
under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.7.
Conclusions: TIMI-RS was acceptably useful to predict in-hospital mortality
in this group of patients with STEAMI. Differences between the observed and
originally predicted mortality are explained by the clinical profile and therapeutic
protocols applied to patients in different studies. Thus, caution needs to be
taken when interpreting the risk associated to a specific score, particularly within
non-reperfused patients whose risk might be underestimated.