Cardiac Risk Assessment: Matching Intensity of Therapy to Risk

Simple RSS allow for rapid decision making in the emergency department. The data presented in this article suggest that for patients at the highest risk and the lowest risk for complications of NSTEACS, the scoring systems work well and allow effective triage and treatment. For patients at intermediate risk (30%-40% of all patients who have ACS), however, it is not clear whether early aggressive treatment with cardiac catheterization or routine conservative management should be the standard of care. The consensus guidelines are vague, and the scoring systems discriminate less well for these patients. The authors think that patients at intermediate risk are best served by initial screening with an RSS like the TRS (with risk scores of 3-4), followed by a multimarker strategy to define risk better. They also think that the next step is to design clinical trials to test strategies of care defined prospectively by risk. This step would, in the authors' opinion, begin the next round of the cycle of clinical therapeutics [31]. The treatment of patients who have NSTE ACS has been characterized in the past 2 decades by care based on evidence from many excellent clinical tri-als. The consensus panels have convened and guide patient management. Quality-improvement initiatives such as CRUSADE and GRACE give feedback to improve compliance with guidelines. The understanding of risk is developing with the help of these scoring systems. Discovery is ongoing. The next decade of acute cardiac care will focus on early identification of patients at high risk and on matching the most intensive treatments to the patients most in need. Excessive testing and care promotes cost inefficiency and, perhaps, increased hazard for some patients. New trials are needed to move these new hypotheses back into practice.