Performance of Prognostic Scoring Systems in MINOCA: A Comparison among GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF Scores

Long-term prognostic importance of high levels of sST2 in patient with AMI: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-study aimed to assess the connection between soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and extended clinical outcomes in individuals diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

We systematically collected pertinent literature from PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. The primary effect measures employed in this research were the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals. The quality and publication bias of included studies were evaluated. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the diversity in study outcomes.

RESULTS

This comprehensive meta-analysis ultimately encompassed thirteen studies, involving a total of 11,571 patients. Elevated levels of sST2 were identified as an adverse prognostic indicator, demonstrating a substantial association not only with overall mortality (combined HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.6-3.5, P < 0.01) but also with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5-4.2, P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed that increased sST2 levels were linked to higher rates of all-cause mortality and MACEs in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and other unselected subcategories of AMI.

CONCLUSION

Increased sST2 could predict the long-term prognosis in patients suffering from AMI.

Comparison of HEAR and HEART Scores for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients with low and high risk for acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED) is important for process management and proper resource use. The aim of this study was to compare the HEAR and HEART scores to determine the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over 30 days.

METHODS

Demographic data and clinical evaluations of the patients who presented to the ED with chest pain were recorded. ECGs were evaluated without knowing the clinical status of the patients. The HEART (including history, ECG, age, coronary risk factors, and troponin level) and HEAR (including four items with no troponin) risk scores were calculated. MACE was defined as all MI, all coronary revascularization procedures (PCI and CABG), all-cause death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias within 30 days. Patients with MACE were evaluated as Group 1, and patients without MACE were considered as Group 2, and the data from the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were included in the study. There were 56 (24.3%) patients with MACEs. According to the ROC analysis, the threshold value was determined as ≤3 for both scoring systems. According to this threshold value, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 0.77 and 0.78 for the HEAR score and 0.82 and 0.77 for the HEART score.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the HEAR and HEART scoring systems are useful for the management of patients with chest pain in the ED, the HEART score was evaluated to be more effective.