Value of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF score) in assessing risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the 'All-Comers' LEADERS trial

Wykrzykowska, Joanna J; Garg, Scot; Onuma, Yoshinobu; de Vries, Ton; Goedhart, Dick; Morel, Marie-Angele; van Es, Gerrit-Anne; Buszman, Pawel; Linke, Axel; Ischinger, Thomas; Klauss, Volker; Corti, Roberto; Eberli, Franz; Wijns, William; Morice, Marie-Claude; di Mario, Carlo; van Geuns, Robert Jan; Juni, Peter; Windecker, Stephan and Serruys, Patrick W (2011). Value of age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF score) in assessing risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the 'All-Comers' LEADERS trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular interventions, 4(1), pp. 47-56. Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.958389

[img] Text
Wykrzykowska CircCardiovascInterv 2011.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (752kB) | Request a copy

Background— The age, creatinine, and ejection fraction (ACEF) score (age/left ventricular ejection fraction+1 if creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) has been established as an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery; however, its utility in “all-comer” patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is yet unexplored. Methods and Results— The ACEF score was calculated for 1208 of the 1707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial. Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up according to ACEF score tertiles: ACEFlow ≤1.0225, 1.0225< ACEFmid ≤1.277, and ACEFhigh >1.277. At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major adverse cardiac event–free survival in the highest tertile of the ACEF score (ACEFlow=92.1%, ACEFmid=89.5%, and ACEFhigh=86.1%; P=0.0218). Cardiac death was less frequent in ACEFlow than in ACEFmid and ACEFhigh (0.7% vs 2.2% vs 4.5%; hazard ratio=2.22, P=0.002) patients. Rates of myocardial infarction were significantly higher in patients with a high ACEF score (6.7% for ACEFhigh vs 5.2% for ACEFmid and 2.5% for ACEFlow; hazard ratio=1.6, P=0.006). Clinically driven target-vessel revascularization also tended to be higher in the ACEFhigh group, but the difference among the 3 groups did not reach statistical significance. The rate of composite definite, possible, and probable stent thrombosis was also higher in the ACEFhigh group (ACEFlow=1.2%, ACEFmid=3.5%, and ACEFhigh=6.2%; hazard ratio=2.04, P<0.001). Conclusions— ACEF score may be a simple way to stratify risk of events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with respect to mortality and risk of myocardial infarction.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)


04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology

UniBE Contributor:

Jüni, Peter and Windecker, Stephan




Lippincott Williams & Wilkins




Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 14:21

Last Modified:

09 Sep 2017 21:20

Publisher DOI:


PubMed ID:


Web of Science ID:




URI: (FactScience: 212423)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback