ArticleAsiaIntervention2026
ACEF score and its predictive performance in coronary artery disease patients undergoing PCI: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the C-statistic.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite being minimally invasive, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) presents challenges, especially regarding major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which typically occur within the first year after intervention. Furthermore, many existing MACE prediction models are complex and challenging to apply in clinical practice. Aims: This study evaluated the simple Age, Creatinine, Ejection Fraction (ACEF) score for predicting outcomes in coronary artery disease patients undergoing PCI. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was conducted using six prominent databases. Predictive performance was assessed with the C-statistic, with MACE as the primary endpoint and mortality and ACEF modifications as secondary endpoints. Outcomes reported in at least two studies were included. Results: Twenty studies involving 41,255 patients were analysed, including three RCTs and eight multicentre studies. Key findings include the following: (1) the ACEF score showed good discrimination for <=30-day MACE (area under the curve [AUC] 0.71), (2) it demonstrated stronger predictive ability for both cardiac mortality (AUC 0.75 at 2 years) and all-cause mortality (AUC 0.82 at <=30 days), and (3) its performance was comparable to more complex scores, such as the modified ACEF (mACEF), the Age, Glomerular filtration rate, Ejection Fraction (AGEF), and the clinical SYNTAX scores. Conclusions: Adhering to the law of parsimony, the ACEF score is a straightforward tool based on objectively measured variables. The ACEF score effectively predicts MACE and mortality at <=30 days in PCI patients. Its simplicity and accessibility highlight its value as a practical tool for clinical risk stratification. (PROSPERO Identifier CRD42024558580).
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.