Discrepancy between clinician and research assistant in TIMI score calculation (TRIAGED CPU)

Influence of Patient and Clinician Gender on Emergency Department HEART Scores: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Clinical decision aids can decrease health care disparities. However, many clinical decision aids contain subjective variables that may introduce clinician bias. The HEART score is a clinical decision aid that estimates emergency department (ED) patients' cardiac risk. We sought to explore patient and clinician gender's influence on HEART scores.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational trial, we examined a convenience sample of adult ED patients at one institution presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. We compared ED clinician-generated HEART scores with researcher-generated HEART scores blinded to patient gender. The primary outcome was agreement between clinician and researcher HEART scores by patient gender overall and stratified by clinician gender. Analyses used difference-in-difference (DiD) for continuous score and prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for binary (low versus moderate/high risk) score comparison.

RESULTS

All 336 clinician-patient pairs from the original study were included. In total, 47% (158/336) of patients were women, and 52% (174/336) were treated by a woman clinician. The DiD between clinician and researcher HEART scores among men versus women patients was 0.24 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.48). Compared with researchers, men clinicians assigned a higher score to men versus women patients (DiD 0.51 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.87]), whereas women clinicians did not (DiD 0.00 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.33]). Agreement was the highest among women clinicians (PABAK 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and lowest among men clinicians assessing men patients (PABAK 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Patient and clinician gender may influence HEART scores. Researchers should strive to understand these influences in developing and implementing this and other clinical decision aids.

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.

A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated.

RESULTS

From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.

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.