Comparing HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores for prediction of 30-day major adverse cardiac events in high acuity chest pain patients in the emergency department

Validity of TIMI Risk Score and HEART Score for Risk Assessment of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Presented to an Emergency Department in Jordan

Purpose

To examine the validity and predictability of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk and HEART scores in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain in Jordan (representative of the Middle East and North Africa Region, MENA).

Patients and Methods

Risk scores were calculated for 237 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. Patients were followed-up prospectively for the need for percutaneous coronary intervention, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality, looking for correlation and accuracy between the predicted cardiovascular risk from TIMI risk score and HEART score and the clinical outcome.

Results

Of the 237 patients, approximately 77% were diagnosed with unstable angina and 23% diagnosed with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). about two thirds of the study population were smokers and known to have hypertension and dyslipidaemia. In 50 patients, the primary outcome (need for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at days 14 and 40, all-cause mortality) was observed. Regarding the predictability of the TIMI score, a larger number of events were observed in the study population than predicted. Patients with TIMI scores of 3 to 5 have about a 5-8% higher event rate than predicted.

Conclusion

Both TIMI and HEART risk scores were able to predict an elevated risk of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). The overall impression was that the TIMI risk score tended to underestimate risk in the study population.

Potential performance of a 0 h/1 h algorithm and a single cut-off measure of high-sensitivity troponin T in a diverse population: main results of the IN-HOPE study

AIMS

Chest pain is a major cause of medical evaluation at emergency department (ED) and demands observation to exclude the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays used as isolated measure and by 0- and 1-h algorithms are accepted as a rule-in/rule-out strategy, but there is a lack of validation in specific populations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The IN-HOspital Program to systematizE Chest Pain Protocol (IN-HOPE study) is a multicentre study that prospectively included patients admitted to the ED due to suspected symptoms of AMI at 16 sites in Brazil. Medical decisions of all patients followed the standard approach of 0 h/3 h protocol, but, in addition, blood samples were also collected at 0 and 1 h and sent to a central laboratory (core lab) to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT). To assess the theoretical performance of 0 h/1 h algorithm, troponin < 12 ng/L with a delta < 3 was considered rule-out while a value ≥ 52 or a delta ≥ 5 was considered a rule-in criterion (the remaining were considered as observation group). The main objective of the study was to assess, in a population managed by the 0 h/3 h protocol, the accuracy of 0 h/1 h algorithm overall and in groups with a higher probability of AMI. All patients were followed up for 30 days, and potential events were adjudicated. In addition to the prospective cohort, a retrospective analysis was performed assessing all patients with hs-cTnT measured during the year of 2021 but not included in the prospective cohort, regardless of the indication of the test. A total of 5.497 patients were included (583 in the prospective and 4.914 in the retrospective analysis). The prospective cohort had a mean age of 57.3 (± 14.8) and 45.6% of females with a mean HEART score of 4.0 ± 2.2. By the core lab analysis, 74.4% would be eligible for a rule-out approach (45.3% of them with a HEART score > 3) while 7.3% would fit the rule-in criteria. In this rule-out group, the negative predictive value for index AMI was 100% (99.1-100) overall and regardless of clinical scores. At 30 days, no death or AMI occurred in the rule-out group of both 0/1 and 0/3 h algorithms while 52.4% of the patients in the rule-in group (0 h/1 h) were considered as AMI by adjudication. In the observation group (grey zone) of 0 h/1 h algorithm, GRACE discriminated the risk of these patients better than HEART score. In the retrospective analysis, 1.091 patients had a troponin value of <5 ng/L and there were no cardiovascular deaths at 30 days in this group. Among all 4.914 patients, the 30-day risk of AMI or cardiovascular death increased according to the level of troponin: 0% in the group < 5 ng/L, 0.6% between 5 and 14 ng/L, 2.2% between 14 and 42 ng/L, 6.3% between 42 and 90 ng/L, and 7.7% in the level ≥ 90 ng/L.

CONCLUSION

In this large multicentre study, a 0 h/1 h algorithm had the potential to classify as rule-in or rule-out in almost 80% of the patients. The rule-out protocol had high negative predictive value regardless of clinical risk scores. Categories of levels of hs-cTn T also showed good accuracy in discriminating risk of the patients with a very favourable prognosis for cardiovascular death in the group with value < 5 ng/L.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

NCT04756362.

Comparing the utility of clinical risk scores and integrated clinical judgement in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

AIMS

The utility of clinical risk scores regarding the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) is uncertain. We aimed to directly compare the prognostic performance of five established clinical risk scores as well as an unstructured integrated clinical judgement (ICJ) of the treating emergency department (ED) physician.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-day MACE including all-cause death, life-threatening arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction (including the index event), and unstable angina requiring urgent coronary revascularization were centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists in patients presenting to the ED with acute chest discomfort in an international multicentre study. We compared the prognostic performance of the HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, TIMI score, and EDACS, as well as the unstructured ICJ of the treating ED physician (visual analogue scale to estimate the probability of acute coronary syndrome, ranging from 0 to 100). Among 4551 eligible patients, 1110/4551 patients (24.4%) had at least one MACE within 30 days. Prognostic accuracy was high and comparable for the HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, and ICJ [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.85-0.87] but significantly lower and only moderate for the TIMI score (AUC 0.79, P < 0.001) and EDACS (AUC 0.74, P < 0.001), resulting in sensitivities for the rule-out of 30-day MACE of 93-96, 87 (P < 0.001), and 72% (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, and unstructured ICJ of the treating physician, not the TIMI score or EDACS, performed well for the prediction of 30-day MACE and may be considered for routine clinical use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00470587.

E-HEART score: A novel scoring system for undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. As there is an increase in the global burden of ischemic heart disease, there are multiple scoring systems established in the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify and manage acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with chest pain. The objective of this study was to integrate point-of-care echo into the existing history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score and evaluate a novel scoring system, the echo HEART (E-HEART) score in risk stratification of patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain to the ED. The E-HEART Score was also compared with existing traditional scoring systems for risk-stratifying acute chest pain.

METHODS

A diagnostic accuracy study involving 250 patients with chest pain at the ED of a single tertiary care teaching hospital in India was conducted. The emergency physicians assessed the E-HEART score after integrating their point-of-care echo/focused echo findings into the conventional HEART score on presentation. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 4 weeks of initial presentation. The accuracy of the E-HEART score was compared with other conventional risk stratification scoring systems such as the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), history, electrocardiogram, age, and risk factors, Troponin Only Manchester ACS (T-MACS), and HEART scores.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients with a median age of 53 years (42.25-63.00) were part of the study. Low E-HEART scores (values 0-3) were calculated in 121 patients with no occurrence of MACE in this category. Eighty-one patients with moderate E-HEART scores (4-6) were found to have 30.9% MACE. In 48 patients with high E-HEART scores (values 7-11), MACE occurred in 97.9%. The area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of E-HEART score is 0.992 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-0.99), which is significantly higher than AUROC values for HEART (0.978), TIMI (0.889), T-MACS (0.959), and HEAR (0.861), respectively (P < 0.0001). At a cutoff of E-HEART score >6, it accurately predicted ACS with a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 99% with a diagnostic accuracy of 97%.

CONCLUSION

The E-HEART score gives the clinician a quick and accurate forecast of outcomes in undifferentiated chest pain presenting to the ED. Low E-HEART scores (0-3) have an extremely low probability for short-term MACE and may aid in faster disposition from the ED. The elevated risk of MACE in patients with high E-HEART scores (7-11) may facilitate more aggressive workup measures and avoid disposition errors. E-HEART is an easily adaptable scoring system with improved accuracy compared to conventional scoring systems.

The potential of HEART score to detect the severity of coronary artery disease according to SYNTAX score

Clinical scoring systems such as the HEART score can predict major adverse cardiovascular events, but they cannot be used to demonstrate the degree and severity of coronary artery disease. We investigated the potential of HEART Score in detecting the existence and severity of coronary artery disease based on SYNTAX score. This multi-centric cross-sectional study investigated patients referred to the cardiac emergency departments of three hospitals between January 2018 and January 2020. Data including age, gender, risk factors, comorbidities, 12-lead ECG, blood pressure and echocardiogram were recorded for all the participants. Serum troponin I level was measured on admission and 6 h later. Coronary angiography was done via the femoral or radial route. HEART and SYNTAX scores were calculated for all patients and their association was assessed. 300 patients (65% female) with mean age of 58.42 ± 12.42 years were included. mean HEART Score was 5.76 ± 1.56 (min = 3, max = 9), and mean SYNTAX score was 14.82 ± 11.42 (min = 0, max = 44.5). Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.493 between HEART Score and SYNTAX score which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). We found that HEART Score of more than 6 is 52% sensitive and 74.7% specific to detect extensive coronary artery involvement (SNTAX score ≥ 23). The present study showed that the HEART score has a moderate and positive correlation with the SYNTAX score and HEART score with a cut-off value of 6 is a predictor for SYNTAX score of ≥ 23.

Outpatient Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Scan for a Low-Risk Chest Pain Cohort From the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Analysis

Chest pain accounts for a significant attendances at emergency departments (ED). We examined the utility of early stress myocardial perfusion imaging (SMPI) for stratification of low-risk patients post-ED discharge. A retrospective audit was conducted of patients with chest pain and normal troponin-T (<30Ng/L), who were discharged with outpatient SMPI (median = 3 days post-ED discharge) between January 2018 to January 2020. 880 patients were included and followed up for 12 months. Outcomes measured were: 1) Cardiac events (CE) within 1 year of visit or 2) Significant coronary artery disease (CAD) - coronary angiography demonstrating ≥70% stenosis of epicardial vessels or coronary revascularization procedures performed. In the SMPI negative group, 2 of 802 patients (0.25%) had significant CEs and 11 patients (1.37%) were diagnosed with significant CAD. Of the 78 SMPI positive patients, 1 (1.28%) had a significant CE, while 24 had significant CAD. SMPI had a sensitivity of 65.8%, specificity of 93.7%, positive predictive value of 32.1% and a negative predictive value of 98.4% for predicting adverse CE. Early SMPI post-ED discharge demonstrated high negative predictive value in predicting CEs or significant CAD diagnosis at up to 1 year, suggesting that low-risk patients discharge from ED with early outpatient SMPI is a safe management option.

Differences in cardiac testing resource utilization using two different risk stratification schemes

OBJECTIVE

Assess whether changing an emergency department (ED) chest pain pathway from utilizing the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score for risk stratification to an approach utilizing the History, EKG, Age, Risk, Troponin (HEART) score was associated with reductions in healthcare resource utilization.

METHODS

A retrospective, quasi-experimental study using difference-in-differences and interrupted time series specifications evaluated all ED patients with a chest pain encounter from 8/2015 to 7/2019 at a large academic medical center. We included patients age ≥ 18 with negative troponin testing discharged from the ED. Our standardized care pathway utilized TIMI for risk stratification until 09/2017 and HEART thereafter. We evaluated patients undergoing hospital-based cardiac diagnostic testing (CDT), length of stay (LOS), and 30-day Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) at the intervention site before and after the pathway change and compared these outcomes to a similar control site within the health system for the difference-in-differences specification.

RESULTS

During the study period, 6.3% (450 of 7117) of patients in the TIMI cohort and 7.2% (546 of 7623) in the HEART cohort among 400,965 total ED visits underwent CDT. In a multivariable analysis, transition to the HEART pathway was associated with greater odds of receiving CDT (odds ratio 2.88 [95% CI 1.21 to 6.86]), a reduction in LOS of 34 min (95% CI 2.2 to 67.6), and no significant difference in 30-day MACE.

CONCLUSION

The transition from TIMI to HEART was associated with mixed consequences for healthcare resource utilization, including increased CDT but reduced length of stay.

Early risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS; a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Chest pain is among the most common reasons for Emergency Department (ED) presentation, while most patients should be considered low risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Management of these patients places a significant burden on our health care system. Various risk scores have been developed to facilitate the triage of patients with chest pain. However, it remains unclear which score performs best in identifying low risk patients, in various settings. The aim of this study was to determine which risk score performs best in ruling out non-ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

Data was collected from all patients >18 years presenting to the ED between 01 and 01-2019 and 01-07-2019, if they were suspected of NSTE-ACS. Primary endpoint was NSTE-ACS during presentation to the ED or hospitalization, according to the 2020 ESC guidelines. In a secondary analysis we determined the number low-risk patients, at set safety levels of 95% and 98%.

RESULTS

A total of 536 patients were included, 192 (35.9%) were admitted to the hospital and NSTE-ACS occurred in 134 of 536 patients (25.0%). When areas under the curve (AUC) were compared, pre-HEART (0.869; CI 0.835-0.903), T-MACS (0.862; CI 0.825-0.898) and HEART (0.850; CI 0.815-0.885) performed best. At a safety level of 98%, the HEART score was the best performing risk score and identified 28.9% of patients as low risk, and missed 0 cases of NSTE-ACS. Followed by the pre-HEART score, which identified 18.3% of all patients as low risk, and missed 0% of NSTE-ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed pre-HEART score is both practical and has accurate diagnostic properties, closely followed by the HEART score, and T-MACS. New pre-hospital risk scores are promising and much needed. Future studies should focus on the usage of pre-hospital scores for triage of patients with chest pain, in order to reduce the burden on emergency health care.

Application of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk index in the prediction of long-term outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multiple vessel disease: A single-center prospective observational cohort study

The thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk index has been indicated to be a simple and useful tool for risk stratification of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the predictive value of the TIMI risk index regarding the long-term outcome for patients with STEMI with multiple vessel disease has remained to be determined. In the present study, a total of 369 patients diagnosed with STEMI who received emergency percutaneous coronary intervention treatment were analyzed. A five-year follow-up was performed to record the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality, as well as the secondary endpoints of myocardial infarction, stroke, emergent revascularization and admission due to heart failure. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the cut-off value of the TIMI risk index for predicting all-cause death, based on which the patients were divided into a high TIMI group and a low TIMI group. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to compare the long-term survival of the two groups and multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the predictive value of the risk factors regarding primary and secondary endpoints. The ROC curve indicated that the TIMI risk index was associated with three-year all-cause death with a cut-off value of 30.35 (area under curve, 0.705; P=0.001). The high TIMI group (>30.35) and low TIMI group (<30.35) exhibited a significant difference in all-cause death (P=0.009) but not in any of the secondary endpoints (P=0.527). Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that a high TIMI risk index was an independent risk factor for all-cause death in patients with STEMI and multiple-vessel disease (hazard ratio=3.709, 95% CI: 1.521-9.046, P=0.004). In conclusion, the TIMI risk index was associated with long-term outcomes for patients with STEMI and multiple-vessel disease and may be of value for risk prediction.

Additive value of bioclinical risk scores to high sensitivity troponins-only strategy in acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Discharging patients home as quickly as possible, or gaining the ability to eliminate a serious event is a goal requested by clinicians in the emergency department (ED). For this, risk scores, taking into account co-morbidities, have been established. The aim of our study consists to evaluate in patients with chest pain admitted in ED the risk stratification obtained with clinico-biological risk scores (CCS, GRACE score, TIMI score and HEART score) using Ortho hs-cTnI assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Illkirch, France) on the Vitros 3600® instrument or Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module (Roche diagnostics, Meylan, France), with comparison to hs-cTn-only strategy. Prognostic performances were evaluated according to AMI with or without STEMI, and deaths during hospitalization.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the ED presenting chest pain or symptoms suggesting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Hs-cTnT was performed on a Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module using a fifth-generation assay and was used for the clinical diagnosis. In addition, hs-cTnI was tested using Ortho hs-cTnI assay on the Vitros 3600® analyzer. Retrospectively, we collected the variables needed for each score in clinical records. Our endpoint were occurrence of AMI in patients with chest pain after presentation to the ED and all cause death during the hospitalization.

RESULTS

We enrolled 160 patients with suspected ACS. The adjudicated diagnosis was AMI in 37 patients (with 9 STEMI and 28 NSTEMI), cardiac pathologies in 57 patients and other causes in 66 patients. The majority of patients were classified at high risk for each risk scores (from 42% to 68%) whatever the considered hs-cTn assay, except for TIMI score. Cohen's kappa agreements with GRACE, TIMI and HEART scores were excellent between Roche hs-cTnT vs Ortho hs-cTnI. The AUC of the HEART score was highest for both hs-cTn to predict AMI, NSTEMI or death, with no statistical difference according to the hs-cTn (p = NS) assay used. NRI analysis confirmed the interest of HEART score which improved individual risk prediction for AMI (or NSTEMI) and death.

CONCLUSION

In view of our results, the decision aids using only biological variables (hs-cTn-only strategy and CCS) would seem more effective for rule-out AMI whereas bioclinical risk scores could better identify patients at low and high risk for mortality. In consequence, risk scores taking in account comorbidities, appear necessary to determine the outcome and thus to adapt the therapeutic options. It is interesting to note that the HEART score could be useful for the rule out AMI but also for the risk prediction as confirmed by the NRI.

A machine learning model to predict critical care outcomes in patient with chest pain visiting the emergency department

Background

Currently, the risk stratification of critically ill patient with chest pain is a challenge. We aimed to use machine learning approach to predict the critical care outcomes in patients with chest pain, and simultaneously compare its performance with HEART, GRACE, and TIMI scores.

Methods

This was a retrospective, case-control study in patients with acute non-traumatic chest pain who presented to the emergency department (ED) between January 2017 and December 2019. The outcomes included cardiac arrest, transfer to ICU, and death during treatment in ED. In the randomly sampled training set (70%), a LASSO regression model was developed, and presented with nomogram. The performance was measured in both training set (70% participants) and testing set (30% participants), and findings were compared with the three widely used scores.

Results

We proposed a LASSO regression model incorporating mode of arrival, reperfusion therapy, Killip class, systolic BP, serum creatinine, creatine kinase-MB, and brain natriuretic peptide as independent predictors of critical care outcomes in patients with chest pain. Our model significantly outperformed the HEART, GRACE, TIMI score with AUC of 0.953 (95%CI: 0.922–0.984), 0.754 (95%CI: 0.675–0.832), 0.747 (95%CI: 0.664–0.829), 0.735 (95%CI: 0.655–0.815), respectively. Consistently, our model demonstrated better outcomes regarding the metrics of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score. Similarly, the decision curve analysis elucidated a greater net benefit of our model over the full ranges of clinical thresholds.

Conclusion

We present an accurate model for predicting the critical care outcomes in patients with chest pain, and provide substantial support to its application as a decision-making tool in ED.

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.

Value of Repeated Troponin Measurements to Improve the Safety of the HEART Score for Chest Pain Patients at the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The HEART score is a clinical decision support tool for physicians to stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting with chest pain at the emergency department. The score includes 5 elements, including troponin level. Our aim was to compare safety and efficiency of the HEART scores calculated by using the first representative troponin (ie, based on time since symptom onset) compared to the original HEART score, where calculation was based on the first available troponin measurement, irrespective of duration of symptoms.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis on patients from the HEART-impact trial (2013-2014, the Netherlands). Two HEART scores were calculated for all patients: a HEART score with a T (troponin) element score based on the first available troponin (HEART-first) and 1 with a T element score based on the first representative troponin (ie, at least 3 hours after symptom onset; HEART-representative). We compared all patients' scores and risk categories between HEART-first and HEART-representative. Furthermore, we compared safety (proportion of patients with MACE receiving a low score) and efficiency (proportion of patients with a low score) between HEART-first and HEART-representative.

RESULTS

We included 1222 patients. In 882 (72%) patients, the first troponin was representative, resulting in the same HEART-first and HEART-representative score. In the remaining 340 patients the use of HEART-representative led to a different score than HEART-first in 43 patients (3.5%). Out of the 222 patients with MACE, 11 patients (5.0%) received a low score by using HEART-first compared with 10 patients (4.5%) when using HEART-representative (P = 0.83). The number of patients with a low score was similar (P = 0.93) when using the HEART-first (464/1222; 38%) or HEART-representative score (462/1222; 38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a representative troponin measurement changed the value of the HEART score in only 3.5% of patients and had no impact on safety and efficiency of the HEART score. These results suggest there is no need to wait for a representative troponin measurement and should encourage physicians to adhere to the original HEART score guidelines.

Utilizing machine learning dimensionality reduction for risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Chest pain is among the most common presenting complaints in the emergency department (ED). Swift and accurate risk stratification of chest pain patients in the ED may improve patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. Traditional logistic regression with stepwise variable selection has been used to build risk prediction models for ED chest pain patients. In this study, we aimed to investigate if machine learning dimensionality reduction methods can improve performance in deriving risk stratification models.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the data of patients > 20 years old who presented to the ED of Singapore General Hospital with chest pain between September 2010 and July 2015. Variables used included demographics, medical history, laboratory findings, heart rate variability (HRV), and heart rate n-variability (HRnV) parameters calculated from five to six-minute electrocardiograms (ECGs). The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which included death, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization within 30 days of ED presentation. We used eight machine learning dimensionality reduction methods and logistic regression to create different prediction models. We further excluded cardiac troponin from candidate variables and derived a separate set of models to evaluate the performance of models without using laboratory tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and calibration analysis was used to compare model performance.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety-five patients were included in the analysis, of which 247 (31%) met the primary outcome of 30-day MACE. Patients with MACE were older and more likely to be male. All eight dimensionality reduction methods achieved comparable performance with the traditional stepwise variable selection; The multidimensional scaling algorithm performed the best with an area under the curve of 0.901. All prediction models generated in this study outperformed several existing clinical scores in ROC analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Dimensionality reduction models showed marginal value in improving the prediction of 30-day MACE for ED chest pain patients. Moreover, they are black box models, making them difficult to explain and interpret in clinical practice.

Reliability of chest pain risk scores in cancer patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

Objective

The history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, troponin (HEART), the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores are useful risk stratification tools in the emergency department (ED). However, the accuracy of these scores in the cancer population is not well known. This study aimed to compare the performance of cardiac risk stratification scores in cancer patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the ED.

Methods

This prospective cohort study recruited patients with cancer who visited the ED because of suspected ACS. The development of any major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks was recorded, with the study outcome being a MACE within 6 weeks of ED admission.

Results

A total of 178 patients participated in this study, of whom 5.6% developed a MACE. Statistically significant differences were found between the mean HEART and TIMI scores in predicting MACE. The HEART score had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.81), highest sensitivity (80%), and highest negative predictive value (97.5) in patients with cancer.

Conclusion

We found a similar rate of MACE in cancer patients with low-risk chest pain compared to that in the general population. However, the HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores had a lower performance in cancer patients with MACE compared to that in the general population.

The predictive value of the HEART and GRACE scores for major adverse cardiac events in patients with acute chest pain

The history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, troponin (HEART) and global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) scoring systems are commonly used to risk stratify patients with chest pain. This study investigated the application of these scores in predicting the short-term risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) in patients with chest. A total of 509 patients were analyzed. All patients were followed up for 30 days after visiting our emergency department. At 30 days post-admission, the primary outcome (MACE) was recorded in 92 patients (18.1%), 88 (95.6%) of whom had experienced an acute myocardial infarction. Thirty-seven (40.2%) of the patients with a MACE underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and six patients (6.5%) died. The HEART and GRACE scores were both significantly higher in patients who developed a MACE than in those without (P < 0.05). The HEART and GRACE scores had c-statistic values of 0.811 (95% CI 0.774-0.844) and 0.648 (95% CI 0.603-0.688), respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic revealed that the HEART and GRACE scores had values of 8.68 (P = 0.39) and 10.45 (P = 0.11), respectively. The percentages of patients with HEART scores of 0-3, 4-6, and 7-10 were 3.0%, 26.2%, and 46.3%, respectively, in those with a MACE within 30 days. The findings show that while both scoring systems are useful, the HEART score is superior to the GRACE score for predicting the occurrence of MACE within 30 days in patients with chest pain.

Clinically relevant adverse cardiovascular events in intermediate heart score patients admitted to the hospital following a negative emergency department evaluation

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

Study objective: To estimate the frequency of clinically relevant adverse cardiac events (CRACE) in patients admitted to the hospital for chest pain with an intermediate HEART score (4, 5, 6), non-diagnostic EKG, and a negative initial troponin.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted to the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) from May 2016 to May 2019 with an intermediate HEART score (4, 5, or 6), a non-diagnostic EKG, and a negative initial troponin. Our primary outcome was the rate of inpatient clinically relevant adverse cardiac events (CRACE), composite of life-threatening dysrhythmia, inpatient STEMI, cardiac or respiratory arrest, and all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 1118 patients met our inclusion criteria, 6 of whom had CRACE. Overall the rate of CRACE was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2-1.2%). Six patients (0.5%, 95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%) experienced inpatient NSTEMIs, 212 patients (19%, 95% CI, 17-21%) underwent provocative testing during their inpatient stay, 5 patients received a stent or CABG, and 5 patients had false positive non-invasive testing and underwent a negative cardiac catheterization.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of admitted patients with a documented intermediate-risk HEART score, nonischemic EKG, and negative initial troponin, the occurrence of CRACE during the index hospitalization was 0.5%.

External validation of the emergency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP)

OBJECTIVE

We validated prior emergency department (ED) assessments of the chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP) in Korean patients. This score is designed to discriminate patients at a low risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) from those with a potentially more serious condition.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 1273 patients who had presented at our ED with chest pain or symptoms of a suspected coronary artery disease and who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography from January 2017 to December 2018. These cases had been classified as low or high risk using the EDACS-ADP. The primary outcome was a MACE onset within 30 days of presentation.

RESULTS

Of the total study patients, 448 (35.2%) were classified as low risk by the EDACS-ADP and 5 cases (1.1%) of MACE arose. Overall, 221 patients in the study population (17.3%) developed a MACE. The sensitivity, and negative predictive values of the EDACS-ADP were 97.7% (95% CI 94.8-99.3), and 98.9% (97.4-99.5), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity and negative predictive values for the EDACS-ADP were high in Korean patients presenting at the ED. However, the MACE rate among low-risk patients is higher than that considered acceptable by the majority of ED physicians for patients that are to be discharged without further evaluation. Further studies may be warranted for the successful application of the EDACS-ADP.

The utility of the 1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T algorithm compared with and combined with five early rule-out scores in high-acuity chest pain emergency patients

BACKGROUND

Although the 0/1 h high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (0/1 hs-cTnT) algorithm and many risk scores have been validated for use in emergency departments (EDs), their utility in high-acuity ED patients has not been validated. We aimed to validate the 0/1 hs-cTnT algorithm and the HEART, TIMI, GRACE, T-MACS and NOTR risk scores before and after combining the 0/1 algorithm in high-acuity ED chest pain patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in the high-acuity ED of Siriraj Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Adult patients with chest pain were enrolled between November 2018 and November 2019. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (30-day MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, significant coronary stenosis and revascularization procedures.

RESULTS

Of 350 recruited patients, 59 (16.9%) developed 30-day MACE. For the 0/1 hs-cTnT algorithm, sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 91.3% (95%CI 79.2-97.6%) and 97.2% (95%CI 93.2-98.9%), respectively. Specificity and positive predictive value were 79.6% (95%CI 72.8-85.2%) and 53.9% (95%CI 46.2-61.3%), respectively. Of the risk scores, the HEART score had the highest area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (0.74 [95%CI 0.68-0.81]). Combining the 0/1 hs-cTnT algorithm, a TIMI score cut-off of ≤1 had the best sensitivity and NPV (both 100%) and identified the greatest proportion of patients (24.3%) suitable for safe discharge.

CONCLUSION

The 0/1 hs-cTnT algorithm may be feasible in Asian high-acuity ED patients. The HEART score outperformed other scores in predicting 30-day MACE. Combining the 0/1 hs-cTnT algorithm with a TIMI cut-off score ≤ 1 had the best rule-out performance.

Identifying low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: Obstructive coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiac events

BACKGROUND

Accurate risk stratification for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and major cardiac adverse events (MACE) is important in emergency departments. We compared six established chest pain risk scores (the HEART score, CAD basic model, CAD clinical model, TIMI, GRACE, uDF) for prediction of obstructive CAD and MACE.

METHODS

Patients who presented to the emergency department with chest pain or symptoms of suspected CAD and underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography were analyzed. The primary endpoint was adverse outcomes including the presence of obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) and the occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks. We compared the risk scores by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calculated their respective net reclassification index (NRI).

RESULTS

Adverse outcomes occurred in 285 (28.4%) out of the 1002 patients included. For the prediction of adverse outcomes, the AUC of the HEART score (0.792) was superior to those of the CAD clinical model (0.760), CAD basic model (0.749), TIMI (0.749), uDF (0.703), and GRACE (0.653). In terms of the NRI, the HEART score significantly improved the reclassification abilities of the uDF (0.39), GRACE score (0.27), CAD basic model (0.11), TIMI (0.10), and CAD clinical model (0.08) (all P < 0.05). The HEART score also had the highest negative predictive value as well (0.893).

CONCLUSIONS

The HEART score was superior to other cardiac risk scores in predicting both obstructive CAD and MACE. However, due to the high false-negative rate (11%) of the HEART score, its use for identifying low-risk patients should be considered with caution.

Evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models for the stratification of undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department

Background

The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score is recommended for stratifying chest pain. However, there are six formulas used to calculate the GRACE score for different outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including death (Dth) or composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), while in hospital (IH), within 6 months after discharge (OH6m) or from admission to 6 months later (IH6m). We aimed to perform the first comprehensive evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models to predict 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

Patients with acute chest pain were consecutively recruited from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017 from the EDs of two public hospitals in China. The 30-day MACEs included death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), emergency revascularization, cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. The correlation, calibration, discrimination, reclassification and diagnostic accuracy at certain cutoff values of six GRACE models were evaluated. Comparisons with the History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores were conducted.

Results

A total of 2886 patients were analyzed, with 590 (20.4%) patients experiencing outcomes. The GRACE (IHDthMI), GRACE (IH6mDthMI), GRACE (IHDth), GRACE (IH6mDth), GRACE (OH6mDth) and GRACE (OH6mDthMI) showed positive linear correlations with the actual MACE rates (r ≥ 0.568, P < 0.001). All these models had good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P ≥ 0.073) except GRACE (IHDthMI) (P < 0.001). The corresponding C-statistics were 0.83(0.81,0.84), 0.82(0.81,0.83), 0.75(0.73,0.76), 0.73(0.72,0.75), 0.72(0.70,0.73) and 0.70(0.68,0.71), respectively, first two of which were comparable to HEART (0.82, 0.80–0.83) and superior to TIMI (0.71, 0.69–0.73). With a sensitivity ≥95%, GRACE (IHDthMI) ≤81 and GRACE (IH6mDthMI) ≤79 identified 868(30%) and 821(28%) patients as low risk, respectively, which were significantly better than other GRACEs and HEART ≤3(22%). With a specificity ≥95%, GRACE (IHDthMI) > 186 and GRACE (IH6mDthMI) > 161 could recognize 12% and 11% patients as high risk, which were greater than other GRACEs, HEART ≥8(9%) and TIMI ≥5(8%).

Conclusions

In this Chinese setting, certain strengths of GRACE models beyond HEART and TIMI scores were still noteworthy for stratifying chest pain patients. The validation and reasonable application of appropriate GRACE models in the evaluation of undifferentiated chest pain should be recommended.

Heart rate n-variability (HRnV) and its application to risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department

Background

Chest pain is one of the most common complaints among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Causes of chest pain can be benign or life threatening, making accurate risk stratification a critical issue in the ED. In addition to the use of established clinical scores, prior studies have attempted to create predictive models with heart rate variability (HRV). In this study, we proposed heart rate n-variability (HRnV), an alternative representation of beat-to-beat variation in electrocardiogram (ECG), and investigated its association with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED patients with chest pain.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected from the ED of a tertiary hospital in Singapore between September 2010 and July 2015. Patients > 20 years old who presented to the ED with chief complaint of chest pain were conveniently recruited. Five to six-minute single-lead ECGs, demographics, medical history, troponin, and other required variables were collected. We developed the HRnV-Calc software to calculate HRnV parameters. The primary outcome was 30-day MACE, which included all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the association between individual risk factors and the outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare the HRnV model (based on leave-one-out cross-validation) against other clinical scores in predicting 30-day MACE.

Results

A total of 795 patients were included in the analysis, of which 247 (31%) had MACE within 30 days. The MACE group was older, with a higher proportion being male patients. Twenty-one conventional HRV and 115 HRnV parameters were calculated. In univariable analysis, eleven HRV and 48 HRnV parameters were significantly associated with 30-day MACE. The multivariable stepwise logistic regression identified 16 predictors that were strongly associated with MACE outcome; these predictors consisted of one HRV, seven HRnV parameters, troponin, ST segment changes, and several other factors. The HRnV model outperformed several clinical scores in the ROC analysis.

Conclusions

The novel HRnV representation demonstrated its value of augmenting HRV and traditional risk factors in designing a robust risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain in the ED.

HEART, TIMI, and GRACE Scores for Prediction of 30-Day Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in the Era of High-Sensitivity Troponin

Fundamento

Múltiplos sistemas de pontuação têm sido elaborados para calcular o risco de eventos cardiovasculares adversos maiores (MACE) em pacientes com dor no peito. Não há dados que avaliem se o escore HEART tem um desempenho superior a TIMI e GRACE para a predição de MACE, especialmente na era de troponina I de alta sensibilidade e em uma população exclusivamente latino-americana.

Objetivo

Comparar o desempenho dos escores HEART, TIMI e GRACE para a predição de MACE em 30 dias de acompanhamento, em pacientes atendidos com dor no peito no departamento de emergência.

Métodos

Os escores HEART, TIMI e GRACE foram analisados em 519 pacientes com dor no peito no departamento de emergência. O desfecho primário foi a ocorrência de MACE no período de 30 dias. O desempenho do escore HEART foi comparado com o dos escores TIMI e GRACE utilizando o teste de DeLong, considerando estatisticamente significativos os valores de p de 0,05.

Resultados

Um total de 224 pacientes (43%) apresentaram MACE no período de 30 dias. A estatística C para os escores HEART, TIMI e GRACE foi de 0,937, 0,844 e 0,797 respectivamente (p < 0,0001). Uma pontuação de 3 ou menos no escore HEART apresentou uma sensibilidade de 99,5% e um valor preditivo negativo de 99% para classificar pacientes de baixo risco de maneira correta; ambos os valores foram mais elevados do que aqueles obtidos pelos outros escores.

Conclusão

O escore HEART, em um período de 30 dias, prediz eventos cardiovasculares, mais eficazmente, em comparação com os outros escores. Troponinas de alta sensibilidade mantêm a superioridade previamente demonstrada deste escore. Este escore oferece uma identificação mais precisa dos pacientes de baixo risco. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)

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

We studied whether previously developed cardiac risk scores-including history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART); Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI); Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE); and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain (EDACS)-could be applied to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with possible coronary artery disease, including anginal equivalents. Patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography were included. The primary outcome was 30-day MACE. We compared the cardiac risk scores by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). The primary outcome occurred in 200 patients (16.0%) of the 1247 patients included. For the prediction of MACE, the AUC of the HEART score (0.765) was superior to those of the TIMI (0.726), GRACE (0.612), and EDACS (0.631) scores. Among patients identified by each score as being at low risk, the MACE rate was the lowest for the HEART score (5.7%), followed by the TIMI (8.8%), EDACS (11.2%), and GRACE (12.2%) scores. At a sensitivity level of a < 2% rate of misses, the negative predictive value of the HEART score (1.0) outperformed those of the GRACE (0.932) and EDACS (0.964). The HEART score appeared to be more predictive of MACEs than the TIMI, GRACE, and EDACS in patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents. However, previously suggested cutoff could not safely identify low-risk patients for early discharge because of the unacceptably high rate of missed MACEs.

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

Background

Triage decisions for chest pain patients receiving usual care are based on a dynamic and comprehensive strategy performed in the physician's mind. It remains controversial whether simple, structured risk tools can surpass real, complex judgments.

Hypothesis

The potentially used History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score would help identify low‐risk patients for discharge.

Methods

Patients with acute, non‐traumatic chest pain managed according to usual care were consecutively enrolled in a tertiary university hospital in China from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included death, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant coronary stenosis (>50%) within 30 days. We compared the efficacy and safety of usual care and the potentially used HEART score in this population.

Results

Of 2185 patients analyzed, 926 (42.4%) patients were directly discharged by usual care, whereas HEART≤3 would have identified 524 (24.0%) patients as low‐risk (P < .001). The MACE rate in discharged patients was 2.2% (20/926) and would have been 5.2% (27/524) in those with HEART≤3 (P = .002). For discharged patients, the MACE rates in HEART≤3 vs HEART>3 groups were not significantly different (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = .225). Negative predictive value (NPV) was higher with usual care than with the HEART score (P = .003), but sensitivity was similar. For 340 patients with serial troponins, usual care was superior to the potentially used HEART score in regard to efficacy.

Conclusions

At this institution, usual care identified many more patients for discharge than the HEART score would have without apparently different outcomes in discharged patients with lower vs higher HEART scores. The HEART score would not appear to provide helpful risk stratification.

An artificial intelligence approach to early predict non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with chest pain

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hospital admission rate for the patients with chest pain has already been increased worldwide but no existing risk score has been designed to stratify non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from non-cardiogenic chest pain. Clinical diagnosis of chest pain in the emergency department is always highly subjective and variable. We, therefore, aimed to develop an artificial intelligence approach to predict stable NSTEMI that would give valuable insight to reduce misdiagnosis in the real clinical setting.

METHODS

A standard protocol was developed to collect data from chest pain patients who had visited the emergency department between December 2016 and February 2017. All the chest pain patients with aged <20 years were primarily included in this study. However, STEMI, previous history of ACS, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were excluded from our study. An artificial neural network (ANN) model was then developed to predict NSTEMI patients. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curve was used to measure the performance of this model.

RESULTS

A total of 268 chest pain patients were included in this study; of those, 47 (17.5%) was stable NSTEMI, and 221 (82.5%) was unstable angina patients. Serval risk factors such as cardiac risk factor, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin, corrected QT interval (QTc), PR interval, glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, glutamic pyruvic transaminase and troponin were independently associated with stable NSTEMI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and accuracy of ANN were 98.4, and 92.86. Additionally, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ANN model was 90.91, 93.33, 76.92, and 97.67 respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our prediction model showed a higher accuracy to predict NSTEMI patients. This model has a potential application in disease detection, monitoring, and prognosis of chest pain at risk of AMI.

Prognostic Accuracy of the HEART Score for Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Presenting With Chest Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The HEART score has been proposed for emergency department (ED) prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We sought to summarize all studies assessing the prognostic accuracy of the HEART score for prediction of MACE in adult ED patients presenting with chest pain.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through May 2018 and included studies using the HEART score for the prediction of short-term MACE in adult patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. The main outcome was short-term (i.e., 30-day or 6-week) incidence of MACE. We secondarily evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the HEART score for prediction of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). Where available, accuracy of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score was determined.

RESULTS

We included 30 studies (n = 44,202) in analysis. A HEART score above the low-risk threshold (≥4) had a sensitivity of 95.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 93.3%-97.5%) and specificity of 44.6% (95% CI = 38.8%-50.5%) for MACE. A high-risk HEART score (≥7) had a sensitivity of 39.5% (95% CI = 31.6%-48.1%) and specificity of 95.0% (95% CI = 92.6%-96.6%) for MACE, whereas a TIMI score above the low-risk threshold (≥2) had a sensitivity of 87.8% (95% CI = 80.2%-92.8%) and specificity of 48.1% (95% CI = 38.9%-57.5%) for MACE. A high-risk TIMI score (≥6) was 2.8% sensitive (95% CI = 0.8%-9.6%), but 99.6% (95% CI = 98.5%-99.9%) specific for MACE. A HEART score ≥ 4 had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI = 87.2%-98.2%) for prediction of mortality and 97.5% (95% CI = 93.7%-99.0%) for prediction of MI.

CONCLUSIONS

The HEART score has excellent performance for prediction of MACE (particularly mortality and MI) in chest pain patients and should be the primary clinical decision instrument used for the risk stratification of this patient population.

Comparison of nine coronary risk scores in evaluating patients presenting to hospital with undifferentiated chest pain

INTRODUCTION

We compared performance of nine risk scores for coronary heart disease (CHD) among patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated chest pain of possible coronary origin.

METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken of adult patients presenting with chest pain to atertiary hospital ED with no electrocardiographs or troponin results diagnostic of ischemic chest pain (ICP) or acute coronary syndrome at ED presentation, and no clearly evident noncoronary diagnosis. Risk scores were applied using cut-points distinguishing low- from high-risk patients according to discharge diagnosis of noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) or ICP, respectively. A lower odds ratio (OR) for ICP denoted lower risk for ICP. Score performance was compared using area under receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUC) and predictive values.

RESULTS

A total of 401 patients were studied, of whom 123 (30.7%) had ICP as final diagnosis. Among the nine risk scores, those with greatest ability to detect low-risk patients were The North American Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) score (OR=0.35, 95% CI=0.27-0.46); History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score (OR=0.43; 95% CI=0.35-0.52); and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score (OR=0.49; 95% CI=0.41-0.58). Discrimination between patients with NCCP and those with ICP was greatest for HEART score (AUC=0.82; 95% CI=0.78-0.86) and lowest for Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients with Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins (ADAPT) score (AUC=0.63; 95% CI=0.58-0.69). In excluding ICP, ADAPT had negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (miss rate 0%) but classified only 1.7% of patients as low risk, compared to NACPR with NPV 98% (miss rate 2%), classifying 10.2% as low risk, and HEART with NPV 94% (miss rate 6%), classifying 32.4% as low risk.

CONCLUSION

The NACPR risk score maximized yield of low-risk patients with lowest miss rate for ICP, while HEART score classified highest proportion of low-risk patients but with a higher miss rate.

Comparison of clinical risk scores for triaging high-risk chest pain patients at the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Many of the clinical risk scores routinely used for chest pain assessment have not been validated in patients at high risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We performed an independent comparison of HEART, TIMI, GRACE, FRISC, and PURSUIT scores for identifying chest pain due to ACS and for predicting 30-day death or re-infarction in patients arriving through Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled consecutive EMS patients evaluated for chest pain at three emergency departments. A reviewer blinded to outcome data retrospectively reviewed patient charts to compute each risk score. The primary outcome was ACS diagnosed during the primary admission, and the secondary outcome was death or re-infarction within 30-days of initial presentation. Our sample included 750 patients (aged 59 ± 17 years, 42% female), of whom 115 (15.3%) had ACS and 33 (4.4%) had 30-day death or re-infarction. The c-statistics of HEART, TIMI, GRACE, FRISC, and PURSUIT for identifying ACS were 0.87, 0.86, 0.73, 0.84, and 0.79, respectively, and for predicting 30-day death or re-infarction were 0.70, 0.73, 0.72, 0.72, and 0.62, respectively. Sensitivity/negative predictive value of HEART ≥ 4 and TIMI ≥ 3 for ACS detection were 0.94/0.98 and 0.87/0.97, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In chest pain patients admitted through EMS, HEART and TIMI outperform other scores for identifying chest pain due to ACS. Although both have similar negative predictive value, HEART has better sensitivity and lower rate of false negative results, thus it can be used preferentially over TIMI in the initial triage of this population.

Prognosticating Clinical Prediction Scores Without Clinical Gestalt for Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Assessment of patients with chest pain is a regular challenge in the emergency department (ED). Recent guidelines recommended quantitative assessment of ischemic risk by means of risk scores.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the performance of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI); Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE); history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) scores; and the North America Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) without components of clinical gestalt in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study in adult patients who attended the ED with undifferentiated chest pain. Clinical prediction rules were applied and calculated. The clinical prediction rules were modified from the original ones, excluding components requiring judgment by clinical gestalt. The primary outcome was MACE. Performance of the tests were evaluated by receive operating characteristic curves and the area under curves (AUC).

RESULTS

There were 1081 patients included in the study. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 164 (15.2%) patients. The AUC of the GRACE score was 0.756, which was inferior to the TIMI score (AUC 0.809) and the HEART score (AUC 0.845). A TIMI score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 45.7%. A GRACE score ≥ 50 had a sensitivity of 99.4% and a specificity of 7.5%. A HEART score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 98.8% and a specificity of 11.7%. The NACPR had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 51.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Without clinical gestalt, the modified HEART score had the best discriminative capacity in predicting 30-day MACE.

Contemporary Emergency Department Management of Patients with Chest Pain: A Concise Review and Guide for the High-Sensitivity Troponin Era

This article synthesizes current best evidence for the evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using high-sensitivity troponin assays, enabling physicians to effectively incorporate them into practice. Unlike conventional assays, high-sensitivity assays can precisely measure blood cardiac troponin concentrations in the vast majority of healthy individuals, facilitating the creation of rapid diagnostic algorithms. Very low troponin concentrations on presentation accurately rule out acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and enable the discharge of approximately 20% of patients after a single test, whereas an additional 30%-40% of patients can be safely discharged after short-interval serial sampling in as little as 1 or 2 hours. In contrast, highly abnormal troponin concentrations on presentation (more than 5 times the upper reference limit) or rapidly rising levels on serial testing can rapidly rule in AMI with high specificity. However, approximately one-third of patients remain in a biomarker-indeterminate "observation zone" even after serial sampling. These patients pose a disposition challenge to clinicians because although the differential diagnosis of elevated troponin concentrations is broad, these patients have an increased risk for short-term major adverse cardiac events. Use of repeated serial troponin sampling and structured clinical prediction tools may assist disposition for these patients, because no validated pathways currently exist to guide clinicians. Ongoing research to tailor diagnostic thresholds to individual patient characteristics may enable improved diagnostic accuracy and usher in a new era of personalized medicine in the evaluation of suspected ACS.

Secondary analysis of frequency, circumstances and consequences of calculation errors of the HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors and troponin) score at the emergency departments of nine hospitals in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

The HEART score can accurately stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with chest pain. We investigated the frequency, circumstances and potential consequences of errors in its calculation.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge trial of patients with chest pain presenting to nine Dutch emergency departments. We recalculated HEART scores for all patients by re-evaluating the elements age (A), risk factors (R) and troponin (T) and compared these new scores with those given by physicians in daily practice. We investigated which circumstances increased the probability of incorrect scoring and explored the potential consequences.

RESULTS

The HEART score was incorrectly scored in 266 out of 1752 patients (15.2%; 95% CI 13.5% to 16.9%). Most errors occurred in the R ('Risk factors') element (61%). Time of admission, and patient's age or gender did not contribute to errors, but more errors were made in patients with higher scores. In 102 patients (5.8%, 95% CI 4.7% to 6.9%) the incorrect HEART score resulted in incorrect risk categorisation (too low or too high). Patients with an incorrectly calculated HEART score had a higher risk of MACE (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.50), which was largely related to more errors being made in patients with higher HEART scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the HEART score was incorrectly calculated in 15% of patients, leading to inappropriate risk categorisation in 5.8% which may have led to suboptimal clinical decision-making and management. Actions should be taken to improve the score's use in daily practice.

Usefulness of Multiple Biomarkers for Predicting Incident Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Who Underwent Diagnostic Coronary Angiography (from the Catheter Sampled Blood Archive in Cardiovascular Diseases [CASABLANCA] Study)

We sought to develop a multiple biomarker approach for prediction of incident major adverse cardiac events (MACE; composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) in patients referred for coronary angiography. In a 649-participant training cohort, predictors of MACE within 1 year were identified using least-angle regression; over 50 clinical variables and 109 biomarkers were analyzed. Predictive models were generated using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator with logistic regression. A score derived from the final model was developed and evaluated with a 278-patient validation set during a median of 3.6 years follow-up. The scoring system consisted of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), kidney injury molecule-1, osteopontin, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1; no clinical variables were retained in the predictive model. In the validation cohort, each biomarker improved model discrimination or calibration for MACE; the final model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (p <0.001), higher than AUC for clinical variables alone (0.75). In net reclassification improvement analyses, addition of other markers to NT-proBNP resulted in significant improvement (net reclassification improvement 0.45; p = 0.008). At the optimal score cutoff, we found 64% sensitivity, 76% specificity, 28% positive predictive value, and 93% negative predictive value for 1-year MACE. Time-to-first MACE was shorter in those with an elevated score (p <0.001); such risk extended to at least to 4 years. In conclusion, in a cohort of patients who underwent coronary angiography, we describe a novel multiple biomarker score for incident MACE within 1 year (NCT00842868).