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

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.

Combined Use of High-Sensitive Cardiac Troponin, Copeptin, and the Modified HEART Score for Rapid Evaluation of Chest Pain Patients

Background

Clinical short-term risk stratification is a recommended approach in patients with chest pain and possible acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to further improve high safety of biomarker-based rule-out algorithms. The study aim was to assess clinical performance of baseline concentrations of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-TnT) and copeptin and the modified HEART score (mHS) in early presenters to the emergency department with chest pain.

Methods

This cohort study included patients with chest pain with onset maximum of 6 h before admission and no persistent ST-segment elevation on electrocardiogram. hs-TnT, copeptin, and the mHS were assessed from admission data. The diagnostic and prognostic value for three baseline rule-out algorithms: (1) single hs-TnT < 14 ng/l, (2) hs-TnT < 14 ng/l/mHS ≤ 3, and (3) hs-TnT < 14 ng/l/mHS ≤ 3/copeptin < 17.4 pmol/l, was assessed with sensitivity and negative predictive value. Primary diagnostic endpoint was the diagnosis of AMI. Prognostic endpoint was death and/or AMI within 30 days.

Results

Among 154 enrolled patients, 44 (29%) were classified as low-risk according to the mHS; AMI was diagnosed in 105 patients (68%). For ruling out AMI, the highest sensitivity and NPV from all studied algorithms were observed for hs-TnT/mHS/copeptin (100%, 95% CI 96.6–100, and 100%, 95% CI 75.3–100). At 30 days, the highest event-free survival was achieved in patients stratified with hs-TnT/mHS/copeptin algorithm (100%) with 100% (95% CI 75.3–100) NPV and 100% (95% CI 96.6–100) sensitivity.

Conclusions

The combination of baseline hs-TnT, copeptin, and the mHS has an excellent sensitivity and NPV for short-term risk stratification. Such approach might improve the triage system in emergency departments and be a bridge for inclusion to serial blood sampling algorithms.