Risk stratification of patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents in the emergency department

A highly predictive cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) risk score for 90-day and one-year major adverse cardiac events and revascularization

BACKGROUND

With the increase in cardiac PET/CT availability and utilization, the development of a PET/CT-based major adverse cardiovascular events, including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization (MACE-Revasc) risk assessment score is needed. Here we develop a highly predictive PET/CT-based risk score for 90-day and one-year MACE-Revasc.

METHODS AND RESULTS

11,552 patients had a PET/CT from 2015 to 2017 and were studied for the training and development set. PET/CT from 2018 was used to validate the derived scores (n = 5049). Patients were on average 65 years old, half were male, and a quarter had a prior MI or revascularization. Baseline characteristics and PET/CT results were used to derive the MACE-Revasc risk models, resulting in models with 5 and 8 weighted factors. The PET/CT 90-day MACE-Revasc risk score trended toward outperforming ischemic burden alone [P = .07 with an area under the curve (AUC) 0.85 vs 0.83]. The PET/CT one-year MACE-Revasc score was better than the use of ischemic burden alone (P < .0001, AUC 0.80 vs 0.76). Both PET/CT MACE-Revasc risk scores outperformed risk prediction by cardiologists.

CONCLUSION

The derived PET/CT 90-day and one-year MACE-Revasc risk scores were highly predictive and outperformed ischemic burden and cardiologist assessment. These scores are easy to calculate, lending to straightforward clinical implementation and should be further tested for clinical usefulness.

A Closer Look at the HEART Score

The history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score is currently a widely used tool for acute chest pain risk stratification. Relatively soon after its inception in 2008, a number of validation studies on the HEART score showed it to be superior to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores and at least as accurate to other existing scores for predicting short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). However, partly due to its focus on simplicity, the HEART score has some limitations. In this article we review how the HEART score has evolved and taken on various modifications to circumvent some of its limitations. We also highlight the strength of the HEART score in comparison with other risk stratification tools and the current guidelines.

Cardiac troponins and adverse outcomes in European patients with atrial fibrillation: A report from the ESC-EHRA EORP atrial fibrillation general long-term registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac troponins (cTn) have been reported to be predictors for adverse outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF), patients, but their actual use is still unclear.

AIM

To assess the factors associated with cTn testing in routine practice and evaluate the association with outcomes.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry were stratified into 3 groups according to cTn levels as (i) cTn not tested, (ii) cTn in range (≤99th percentile), (iii) cTn elevated (>99th percentile). The composite outcome of any thromboembolism /any acute coronary syndrome/cardiovascular (CV) death, defined as Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and all-cause death were the main endpoints.

RESULTS

Among 10 445 AF patients (median age 71 years, 40.3% females) cTn were tested in 2834 (27.1%). cTn was elevated in 904/2834 (31.9%) and in-range in 1930/2834 (68.1%) patients. Female sex, in-hospital enrollment, first-detected AF, CV risk factors, history of coronary artery disease, and atypical AF symptoms were independently associated with cTn testing. Elevated cTn were independently associated with a higher risk for MACE (Model 1, hazard ratio [HR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.16, Model 2, HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05; Model 3 HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.37-2.26) and all-cause death (Model 1, HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.21-1.74; Model 2, HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.12-1.66; Model 3, HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12-1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated cTn levels were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and adverse CV events. Clinical factors that might enhance the need to rule out CAD were associated with cTn testing.

A New Risk Score for Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Normal High Sensitivity Troponin

Objective: To investigate a new risk score for patients who suffered from acute chest pain with normal high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-TnI) levels.

Methods: In this study, patients with acute chest pain who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) of our hospital had been recruited. Hs-TnI was measured in serum samples drawn on admission to the ED. The end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 3 months. Predictor variables were selected by logistic regression analysis, and external validity was assessed in this study. Furthermore, validation was performed in an independent cohort, i.e., 352 patients (validation cohort).

Results: A total of 724 patients were included in the derivation cohort. The results showed that four predictor variables were significant in the regression analysis—male, a history of chest pain, 60 years of age or older and with three or more coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors. A total of 105 patients in the validation cohort had serious adverse cardiac events. The validation cohort showed a homogenous pattern with the derivation cohort when patients were stratified by score. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) in the derivation cohort was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.83), while in the validation cohort, it was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75–0.82).

Conclusion: A new risk score was developed for acute chest pain patients without known CAD and ST-segment deviation and with normal hs-TnI and may aid MACE risk assessment and patient triage in the ED.

Use of Coronary CT Angiography to Predict Obstructive Lesions in Patients with Chest Pain without Enzyme and ST-Segment Elevation

It is challenging to rule out acute coronary syndrome among chest pain patients without both ST-segment elevation in electrocardiography and troponin elevation at emergency departments (ED). The purpose of this study was to develop a prediction model for rapidly determining the occurrence of significant stenosis in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Retrospective observational cohort study was conducted with 904 patients who had presented with chest pain without troponin elevation and ST-segment changes and underwent CCTA between January 2017 and December 2018. The primary endpoint was the presence of significant stenosis on CCTA, defined as narrowing above 70% diameter. The logistic regression model was used for development a new predictive model. One hundred and thirty-four patients (14.8%) were shown severe stenosis. The independent associated factors for significant stenosis were age ≥65 years, male, diabetes, history of acute coronary syndrome, and typical chest pain. Based these results, we developed a new prediction model. The area under the curve was 0.782 (95% confidence interval 0.742-0.822). Moreover, score of ≥5 was chosen as cut-off values with 86.6% sensitivity and 56.4% specificity. In conclusion, among chest pain patients without ST changes and troponin elevation, the new score will be helpful to identify potential candidate for CCTA such as patients with significant stenosis.

Indirect comparison of TIMI, HEART and GRACE for predicting major cardiovascular events in patients admitted to the emergency department with acute chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to compare the predictive values of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI); History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) and Global Registry in Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scoring systems for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in acute chest pain (ACP) patients admitted to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from their inception to June 2020; we compared the following parameters: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity and specificity for TIMI, HEART and GRACE were 0.95 and 0.36, 0.96 and 0.50, and 0.78 and 0.56, respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR for TIMI, HEART and GRACE were 1.49 and 0.13, 1.94 and 0.08, and 1.77 and 0.40, respectively. The pooled DOR for TIMI, HEART and GRACE was 9.18, 17.92 and 4.00, respectively. The AUC for TIMI, HEART and GRACE was 0.80, 0.80 and 0.70, respectively. Finally, the results of indirect comparison suggested the superiority of values of TIMI and HEART to those of GRACE for predicting MACEs, while there were no significant differences between TIMI and HEART for predicting MACEs.

CONCLUSIONS

TIMI and HEART were superior to GRACE for predicting MACE risk in ACP patients admitted to the ED.

Impact of coronary risk scores on disposition decision in emergency patients with chest pain

BACKGROUND

Coronary risk scores (CRS) including History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) score and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can help identify patients at low risk of major adverse cardiac events. In the emergency department (ED), there are wide variations in hospital admission rates among patients with chest pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CRS on the disposition of patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome in the ED.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 3660 adult patients who presented to the ED with chest pain between January and July in 2019. Study inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a primary position International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th revision coded diagnosis of angina pectoris (I20.0-I20.9) or chronic ischemic heart disease (I25.0-I25.9) by the treating ED physician. If the treating ED physician completed the electronic structured variables for CRS calculation to assist disposition planning, then the patient would be classified as the CRS group; otherwise, the patient was included in the control group.

RESULTS

Among the 2676 patients, 746 were classified into the CRS group, whereas the other 1930 were classified into the control group. There was no significant difference in sex, age, initial vital signs, and ED length of stay between the two groups. The coronary risk factors were similar between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of smokers in the CRS group (19.6% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.031). Compared with the control group, significantly more patients were discharged (70.1% vs. 64.6%) directly from the ED, while fewer patients who were hospitalized (25.9% vs. 29.7%) or against-advise discharge (AAD) (2.6% vs. 4.0%) in the CRS group. Major adverse cardiac events and mortality at 60 days between the two groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher ED discharge rate of the group using CRS may indicate that ED physicians have more confidence in discharging low-risk patients based on CRS.

Modification of the HEART pathway by adding coronary computed tomography angiography for patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department

The HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, troponin) pathway (HP) was developed for identifying low-risk patients for early discharge among patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department (ED). We investigated whether adding coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) results to selected patients could improve the diagnostic accuracy of the HP. Patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome who had undergone CCTA were included. The HP was modified by adding CCTA results of stenosis of any major epicardial coronary arteries to patients either with 0-3 points and a positive troponin test or with 4-6 points. All patients were reclassified into low and increased risk groups. We then compared the accuracy of the modified HP, the HP, and the HEART score. The primary outcome was the 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Of the total 1239 patients included, MACE occurred in 206 (16.6%) patients. Adding the CCTA results increased the proportion of patients with low risk (68.7%) compared with the HP (40.0%) and the HEART score (47.4%). Using the modified HP, 50.4% of patients with intermediate-risk by the HEART score could be discharged from the ED and had no MACE. Incorporation of CCTA results improved the accuracy rate for the prediction of MACE compared with the HP and the HEART score (net reclassification improvements were 34.5 and 39.6%, respectively). Using the CCTA after the HP in selected patients could be a better strategy to discharge more patients early and safely.