Referral decisions based on a pre-hospital HEART score in suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: final results of the FamouS Triage study

External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS

BACKGROUND

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin.

METHODS

Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05243485.

Pre-hospital rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome by a single troponin: final one-year outcomes of the ARTICA randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The healthcare burden of acute chest pain is enormous. In the randomized ARTICA trial, we showed that pre-hospital identification of low-risk patients and rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement reduces 30-day healthcare costs with low major adverse cardiac events (MACE) incidence. Here we present the final 1-year results of the ARTICA trial.

METHODS

Low-risk patients with suspected NSTE-ACS were randomized to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or emergency department (ED) transfer. Primary 1-year outcome was healthcare costs. Secondary outcomes were safety, quality of life (QoL), and cost-effectiveness. Safety was defined as a 1-year MACE consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularization, or all-cause death. QoL was measured with EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was defined as 1-year healthcare costs difference per QoL difference.

RESULTS

Follow-up was completed for all 863 patients. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1932 ± €2784 vs. €2649 ± €2750), mean difference €717 [95% confidence interval (CI) €347 to €1087; P < 0.001]. In the total population, the 1-year MACE rate was comparable between groups [5.1% (22/434) in the pre-hospital strategy vs. 4.2% (18/429) in the ED strategy; P = 0.54]. In the ruled-out ACS population, 1-year MACE remained low [1.7% (7/419) vs. 1.4% (6/417)], risk difference 0.2% (95% CI -1.4% to 1.9%; P = 0.79). QoL showed no significant difference between strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-hospital rule-out of NSTE-ACS with POC troponin testing in low-risk patients is cost-effective, as expressed by a sustainable healthcare cost reduction and no significant effect on QoL. One-year MACE remained low for both strategies.

Could paramedics use the HEART Pathway to identify patients at low-risk of myocardial infarction in the prehospital setting?

In the Emergency Department, patients with suspected myocardial infarction can be risk stratified using the HEART pathway, which has recently been amended for prehospital use and modified for the incorporation of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test. In a prospective analysis, the performance of both HEART pathways in the prehospital setting, with a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test using 3 different thresholds, was evaluated for major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. We found that both low-risk HEART pathways, when using the most conservative cardiac troponin thresholds, approached but did not reach accepted rule-out performance in the Emergency Department.

Pre-hospital evaluation of chest pain patients using the modified HEART-score: rationale and design

Background: This study assesses how ambulance paramedics using the modified HEART-score with a point-of-care cardiac troponin (cTn) compare to the emergency physicians using the modified HEART-score with a high-sensitive cTn (hs-cTn) in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), focusing on interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. Methods: In this prospective multicenter cohort, we compare four cTn testing strategies (serial point of care and hs-cTn cTn measurement) with and without the HEART-score. Outcomes include the HEART-score's interobserver agreement, NSTE-ACS at discharge, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after 30 days, and diagnostic accuracy of the different strategies. Conclusion: The POPular HEART study aims to improve NSTE-ACS diagnostic pathways, promoting pre-hospital detection and ruling out of NSTE-ACS to minimize unnecessary hospitalizations and associated costs.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04851418 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention centre in suspected acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital risk stratification and triage are currently not performed in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This may lead to prolonged time to revascularisation, increased duration of hospital admission and higher healthcare costs. The preHEART score (prehospital history, ECG, age, risk factors and point-of-care troponin score) can be used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with NSTE-ACS. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre, based on the preHEART score, on time to final invasive diagnostics or culprit revascularisation.

METHODS

Prospective, multicentre, two-cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. The first cohort is observational (standard care), while the second (interventional) cohort includes patients who are stratified for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI centre based on their preHEART score. Risk stratification and triage are performed by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint of the study is time from first medical contact until final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation. Secondary endpoints are time from first medical contact until intracoronary angiography (ICA), duration of hospital admission, number of invasive diagnostics, number of inter-hospital transfers and major adverse cardiac events at 7 and 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1069 patients were included. In the interventional cohort (n=577), time between final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation (42 (17-101) hours vs 20 (5-44) hours, p<0.001) and length of hospital admission (3 (2-5) days vs 2 (1-4) days, p=0.007) were shorter than in the observational cohort (n=492). In patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation, healthcare costs were reduced in the interventional cohort (€5599 (2978-9625) vs €4899 (2278-5947), p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI centre, based on the preHEART score, reduces time from first medical contact to final invasive diagnostics and revascularisation, reduces duration of hospital admission and decreases healthcare costs in patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05243485.

AI Algorithm to Predict Acute Coronary Syndrome in Prehospital Cardiac Care: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Overcrowding of hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) is a growing problem. However, not all ED consultations are necessary. For example, 80% of patients in the ED with chest pain do not have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Artificial intelligence (AI) is useful in analyzing (medical) data, and might aid health care workers in prehospital clinical decision-making before patients are presented to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop an AI model which would be able to predict ACS before patients visit the ED. The model retrospectively analyzed prehospital data acquired by emergency medical services' nurse paramedics.

METHODS

Patients presenting to the emergency medical services with symptoms suggestive of ACS between September 2018 and September 2020 were included. An AI model using a supervised text classification algorithm was developed to analyze data. Data were analyzed for all 7458 patients (mean 68, SD 15 years, 54% men). Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for control and intervention groups. At first, a machine learning (ML) algorithm (or model) was chosen; afterward, the features needed were selected and then the model was tested and improved using iterative evaluation and in a further step through hyperparameter tuning. Finally, a method was selected to explain the final AI model.

RESULTS

The AI model had a specificity of 11% and a sensitivity of 99.5% whereas usual care had a specificity of 1% and a sensitivity of 99.5%. The PPV of the AI model was 15% and the NPV was 99%. The PPV of usual care was 13% and the NPV was 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

The AI model was able to predict ACS based on retrospective data from the prehospital setting. It led to an increase in specificity (from 1% to 11%) and NPV (from 94% to 99%) when compared to usual care, with a similar sensitivity. Due to the retrospective nature of this study and the singular focus on ACS it should be seen as a proof-of-concept. Other (possibly life-threatening) diagnoses were not analyzed. Future prospective validation is necessary before implementation.

Accelerated -Rule-Out of acute Myocardial Infarction using prehospital copeptin and in-hospital troponin: The AROMI study

AIMS

The present acute myocardial infarction (AMI) rule-out strategies are challenged by the late temporal release of cardiac troponin. Copeptin is a non-specific biomarker of endogenous stress and rises early in AMI, covering the early period where troponin is still normal. An accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy combining prehospital copeptin and in-hospital high-sensitivity troponin T could reduce length of hospital stay and thus the burden on the health care systems worldwide. The AROMI trial aimed to evaluate if the accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy could safely reduce length of stay in patients discharged after early rule-out of AMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with suspected AMI transported to hospital by ambulance were randomized 1:1 to either accelerated rule-out using copeptin measured in a prehospital blood sample and high-sensitivity troponin T measured at arrival to hospital or to standard rule-out using a 0 h/3 h rule-out strategy. The AROMI study included 4351 patients with suspected AMI. The accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy reduced mean length of stay by 0.9 h (95% confidence interval 0.7-1.1 h) in patients discharged after rule-out of AMI and was non-inferior regarding 30-day major adverse cardiac events when compared to standard rule-out (absolute risk difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -2.5 to 1.7; P-value for non-inferiority = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Accelerated dual marker rule-out of AMI, using a combination of prehospital copeptin and first in-hospital high-sensitivity troponin T, reduces length of hospital stay without increasing the rate of 30-day major adverse cardiac events as compared to using a 0 h/3 h rule-out strategy.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Pathways for Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Out-of-Hospital Environment

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Chest pain is one of the most common reasons for emergency ambulance calls. Patients are routinely transported to the hospital to prevent acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of clinical pathways in the out-of-hospital environment. The Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision aid and History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin score require cardiac troponin (cTn) measurement, whereas the History and ECG-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision aid and History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors score do not.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study at 4 ambulance services and 12 emergency departments between February 2019 and March 2020. We included patients who received an emergency ambulance response in whom paramedics suspected AMI. Paramedics recorded the data required to calculate each decision aid and took venous blood samples in the out-of-hospital environment. Samples were tested using a point-of-care cTn assay (Roche cobas h232) within 4 hours. The target condition was a diagnosis of type 1 AMI, adjudicated by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Of 817 included participants, 104 (12.8%) had AMI. Setting the cutoff at the lowest risk group, Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes had 98.3% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 91.1% to 100%) and 25.5% specificity (21.4% to 29.8%) for type 1 AMI. History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin had 86.4% sensitivity (75.0% to 98.4%) and 42.2% specificity (37.5% to 47.0%); History and ECG-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes had 100% sensitivity (96.4% to 100%) and 3.1% specificity (1.9% to 4.7%), whereas History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors had 95.1% sensitivity (88.9% to 98.4%) and 12.1% specificity (9.8% to 14.8%).

CONCLUSION

With point-of-care cTn testing, decision aids can identify patients at a low risk of type 1 AMI in the out-of-hospital environment. When used alongside clinical judgment, and with appropriate training, such tools may usefully enhance out-of-hospital risk stratification.

Management of patients suspected for non-ST elevation-acute coronary syndrome in the prehospital phase

The management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, especially in prehospital settings, is challenging. This Special Report focuses on studies in emergency medical services concerning chest pain patients' triage and risk stratification. In addition, it emphasizes advancements in point-of-care cardiac troponin testing. These developments are compared with in-hospital guidelines, proposing an initial framework for a new acute care pathway. This pathway integrates a risk stratification tool with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing, aiming to deliver optimal care and collaboration within the acute care chain. It has the potential to contribute to a significant reduction in hospital referrals, reduce observation time and overcrowding at emergency departments and hospital admissions.

Prehospital stratification and prioritisation of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients (NSTEACS): the MARIACHI scale

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a risk scale (MARIACHI) for patients classified as non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) in a prehospital setting with the ability to identify patients at an increased risk of mortality at an early stage.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study conducted in Catalonia over two periods: 2015-2017 (development and internal validation cohort) and Aug 2018-Jan 2019 (external validation cohort). We included patients classified as prehospital NSTEACS, assisted by an advanced life support unit and requiring hospital admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Cohorts were compared using logistic regression and a predictive model was created using bootstrapping techniques.

RESULTS

The development and internal validation cohort included 519 patients. The model is composed of five variables associated with hospital mortality: age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate > 95 bpm, Killip-Kimball III-IV and ST depression ≥ 0.5 mm. The model showed good overall performance (Brier = 0.043) and consistency in discrimination (AUC 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.92) and calibration (slope = 0.91; 95% CI 0.89-0.93). We included 1316 patients for the external validation sample. There was no difference in discrimination (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.78-0.87; DeLong Test p = 0.071), but there was in calibration (p < 0.001), so it was recalibrated. The finally model obtained was stratified and scored into three groups according to the predicted risk of patient in-hospital mortality: low risk: < 1% (-8 to 0 points), moderate risk: 1-5% (+ 1 to + 5 points) and high risk: > 5% (6-12 points).

CONCLUSION

The MARIACHI scale showed correct discrimination and calibration to predict high-risk NSTEACS. Identification of high-risk patients may help with treatment and low referral decisions at the prehospital level.

Consequences of different cut-off values for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin for risk stratification of patients suspected for NSTE-ACS with a modified HEART score

Aim: This study aims to enhance prehospital risk assessment for suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients using the HEART-score. By incorporating novel point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin devices, a modified HEART-score was developed and compared with the conventional approach. Patients & methods: Troponin points within the modified HEART-score are based on values below the limit of quantitation (LoQ), between the LoQ and 99th percentile and above the 99th percentile of the used device. A total HEART-score of three or lower is considered low-risk for major adverse cardiac events. Results & conclusion: The number of low-risk patients decreased based on the modified HEART-score. The sensitivity and negative predictive value increased which suggests increasing safety in ruling out patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

Performance of a prehospital HEART score in patients with possible myocardial infarction: a prospective evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk Factors and Troponin (HEART) score is commonly used to risk stratify patients with possible myocardial infarction as low risk or high risk in the Emergency Department (ED). Whether the HEART score can be used by paramedics to guide care were high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing available in a prehospital setting is uncertain.

METHODS

In a prespecified secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study where paramedics enrolled patients with suspected myocardial infarction, a paramedic Heart, ECG, Age, Risk Factors (HEAR) score was recorded contemporaneously, and a prehospital blood sample was obtained for subsequent cardiac troponin testing. HEART and modified HEART scores were derived using laboratory contemporary and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I assays. HEART and modified HEART scores of ≤3 and ≥7 were applied to define low-risk and high-risk patients, and performance was evaluated for an outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days.

RESULTS

Between November 2014 and April 2018, 1054 patients were recruited, of whom 960 (mean 64 (SD 15) years, 42% women) were eligible for analysis and 255 (26%) experienced a MACE at 30 days. A HEART score of ≤3 identified 279 (29%) as low risk with a negative predictive value of 93.5% (95% CI 90.0% to 95.9%) for the contemporary assay and 91.4% (95% CI 87.5% to 94.2%) for the high-sensitivity assay. A modified HEART score of ≤3 using the limit of detection of the high-sensitivity assay identified 194 (20%) patients as low risk with a negative predictive value of 95.9% (95% CI 92.1% to 97.9%). A HEART score of ≥7 using either assay gave a lower positive predictive value than using the upper reference limit of either cardiac troponin assay alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A HEART score derived by paramedics in the prehospital setting, even when modified to harness the precision of a high-sensitivity assay, does not allow safe rule-out of myocardial infarction or enhanced rule-in compared with cardiac troponin testing alone.

Ruling out acute coronary syndrome in primary care with a clinical decision rule and a capillary, high-sensitive troponin I point of care test: study protocol of a diagnostic RCT in the Netherlands (POB HELP)

INTRODUCTION

Chest pain is a common reason for consultation in primary care. To rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS), general practitioners (GP) refer 40%-70% of patients with chest pain to the emergency department (ED). Only 10%-20% of those referred, are diagnosed with ACS. A clinical decision rule, including a high-sensitive cardiac troponin-I point-of-care test (hs-cTnI-POCT), may safely rule out ACS in primary care. Being able to safely rule out ACS at the GP level reduces referrals and thereby alleviates the burden on the ED. Moreover, prompt feedback to the patients may reduce anxiety and stress.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The POB HELP study is a clustered randomised controlled diagnostic trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy of a primary care decision rule for acute chest pain, consisting of the Marburg Heart Score combined with a hs-cTnI-POCT (limit of detection 1.6 ng/L, 99th percentile 23 ng/L, cut-off value between negative and positive used in this study 3.8 ng/L). General practices are 2:1 randomised to the intervention group (clinical decision rule) or control group (regular care). In total 1500 patients with acute chest pain are planned to be included by GPs in three regions in The Netherlands. Primary endpoints are the number of hospital referrals and the diagnostic accuracy of the decision rule 24 hours, 6 weeks and 6 months after inclusion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The medical ethics committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (the Netherlands) has approved this trial. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participating patients. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NL9525 and NCT05827237.

Improved prehospital triage for acute cardiac care: results from HART-c, a multicentre prospective study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac symptoms are one of the most prevalent reasons for emergency department visits. However, over 80% of patients with such symptoms are sent home after acute cardiovascular disease has been ruled out.

OBJECTIVE

The Hollands-Midden Acute Regional Triage-cardiology (HART-c) study aimed to investigate whether a novel prehospital triage method, combining prehospital and hospital data with expert consultation, could increase the number of patients who could safely stay at home after emergency medical service (EMS) consultation.

METHODS

The triage method combined prehospital EMS data, such as electrocardiographic and vital parameters in real time, and data from regional hospitals (including previous medical records and admission capacity) with expert consultation. During the 6‑month intervention and control periods 1536 and 1376 patients, respectively, were consulted by the EMS. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of patients who could stay at home after EMS consultation.

RESULTS

The novel triage method led to a significant increase in patients who could safely stay at home, 11.8% in the intervention group versus 5.9% in the control group: odds ratio 2.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-3.05). Of 181 patients staying at home, only 1 (< 1%) was later diagnosed with ACS; no patients died. Furthermore the number of interhospital transfers decreased: relative risk 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.97).

CONCLUSION

The HART‑c triage method led to a significant decrease in interhospital transfers and an increase in patients with cardiac symptoms who could safely stay at home. The presented method thereby reduced overcrowding and, if implemented throughout the country and for other medical specialties, could potentially reduce the number of cardiac and non-cardiac hospital visits even further.

Sex Differences in Epidemiology, Care, and Outcomes in Patients With Acute Chest Pain

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies in cardiovascular care for women are well described, but few data assess the entire patient journey for chest pain care.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess sex differences in epidemiology and care pathways from emergency medical services (EMS) contact through to clinical outcomes following discharge.

METHODS

This is a state-wide population-based cohort study including consecutive adult patients attended by EMS for acute undifferentiated chest pain in Victoria, Australia (January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019). EMS clinical data were individually linked to emergency and hospital administrative datasets, and mortality data and differences in care quality and outcomes were assessed using multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

In 256,901 EMS attendances for chest pain, 129,096 attendances (50.3%) were women, and mean age was 61.6 years. Age-standardized incidence rates were marginally higher for women compared with men (1,191 vs 1,135 per 100,000 person-years). In multivariable models, women were less likely to receive guideline-directed care across most care measures including transport to hospital, prehospital aspirin or analgesia administration, 12-lead electrocardiogram, intravenous cannula insertion, and off-load from EMS or review by emergency department clinicians within target times. Similarly, women with acute coronary syndrome were less likely to undergo angiography or be admitted to a cardiac or intensive care unit. Thirty-day and long-term mortality was higher for women diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, but lower overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences in care are present across the spectrum of acute chest pain management from first contact through to hospital discharge. Women have higher mortality for STEMI, but better outcomes for other etiologies of chest pain compared with men.

Chest Pain Management Using Prehospital Point-of-Care Troponin and Paramedic Risk Assessment

Importance

Prehospital point-of-care troponin testing and paramedic risk stratification might improve the efficiency of chest pain care pathways compared with existing processes with equivalent health outcomes, but the association with health care costs is unclear.

Objective

To analyze whether prehospital point-of-care troponin testing and paramedic risk stratification could result in cost savings compared with existing chest pain care pathways.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation of adults with acute chest pain without ST-segment elevation, cost-minimization analysis was used to assess linked ambulance, emergency, and hospital attendance in the state of Victoria, Australia, between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019.

Interventions

Paramedic risk stratification and point-of-care troponin testing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome was estimated mean annualized statewide costs for acute chest pain. Between May 17 and June 25, 2022, decision tree models were developed to estimate costs under 3 pathways: (1) existing care, (2) paramedic risk stratification and point-of-care troponin testing without prehospital discharge, or (3) prehospital discharge and referral to a virtual emergency department (ED) for low-risk patients. Probabilities for the prehospital pathways were derived from a review of the literature. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 50 000 Monte Carlo iterations was used to estimate mean costs and cost differences among pathways.

Results

A total of 188 551 patients attended by ambulance for chest pain (mean [SD] age, 61.9 [18.3] years; 50.5% female; 49.5% male; Indigenous Australian, 2.0%) were included in the model. Estimated annualized infrastructure and staffing costs for the point-of-care troponin pathways, assuming a 5-year device life span, was $2.27 million for the pathway without prehospital discharge and $4.60 million for the pathway with prehospital discharge (incorporating virtual ED costs). In the decision tree model, total annual cost using prehospital point-of-care troponin and paramedic risk stratification was lower compared with existing care both without prehospital discharge (cost savings, $6.45 million; 95% uncertainty interval [UI], $0.59-$16.52 million; lower in 94.1% of iterations) and with prehospital discharge (cost savings, $42.84 million; 95% UI, $19.35-$72.26 million; lower in 100% of iterations).

Conclusions and Relevance

Prehospital point-of-care troponin and paramedic risk stratification for patients with acute chest pain could result in substantial cost savings. These findings should be considered by policy makers in decisions surrounding the potential utility of prehospital chest pain risk stratification and point-of-care troponin models provided that safety is confirmed in prospective studies.

Rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome by a single, pre-hospital troponin measurement: a randomized trial

AIMS

Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are routinely transferred to the emergency department (ED). A clinical risk score with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement might enable ambulance paramedics to identify low-risk patients in whom ED evaluation is unnecessary. The aim was to assess safety and healthcare costs of a pre-hospital rule-out strategy using a POC troponin measurement in low-risk suspected NSTE-ACS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This investigator-initiated, randomized clinical trial was conducted in five ambulance regions in the Netherlands. Suspected NSTE-ACS patients with HEAR (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors) score ≤3 were randomized to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or direct transfer to the ED. The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome of 30-day healthcare costs. Secondary outcome was safety, defined as 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularization or all-cause death. : A total of 863 participants were randomized. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1349 ± €2051 vs. €1960 ± €1808) with a mean difference of €611 [95% confidence interval (CI): 353-869; P < 0.001]. In the total population, MACE were comparable between groups [3.9% (17/434) in pre-hospital strategy vs. 3.7% (16/429) in ED strategy; P = 0.89]. In the ruled-out ACS population, MACE were very low [0.5% (2/419) vs. 1.0% (4/417)], with a risk difference of -0.5% (95% CI -1.6%-0.7%; P = 0.41) in favour of the pre-hospital strategy.

CONCLUSION

Pre-hospital rule-out of ACS with a POC troponin measurement in low-risk patients significantly reduces healthcare costs while incidence of MACE was low in both strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05466591 and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform id NTR 7346.

Performance of Prehospital Use of Chest Pain Risk Stratification Tools: The RESCUE Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency medical services (EMS) assesses millions of patients with chest pain each year. However, tools validated to risk stratify patients for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE) have not been translated to the prehospital setting. The objective of this study is to assess the prehospital performance of risk stratification scores for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and PE.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study of patients ≥21 years of age with acute chest pain who were transported by EMS in two North Carolina (NC) counties was conducted from 18 April 2018-2 January 2019. In this convenience sample, paramedics completed HEAR (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factor), ED Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), Revised Geneva Score (RGS), and pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) assessments on each patient. MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) and PE at 30 days were determined by hospital records and NC Death Index. The positive (+LR) and negative likelihood ratios (-LR) of the risk scores for 30-day MACE and PE were calculated.

RESULTS

During the study period, 82.1% (687/837) patients had all four risk score assessments. The cohort was 51.1% (351/687) female, 49.5% (340/687) African American, and had a mean age of 55.0 years (SD 16.0). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 7.4% (51/687), PE occurred in 0.9% (6/687), and the combined outcome occurred in 8.2% (56/687). The HEAR score had a - LR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.27-0.78) and + LR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.26-1.74) for 30-day MACE. EDACS had a - LR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.46-0.81) and + LR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.86-3.46) for 30-day MACE. The PERC score had a - LR of 0 (95% CI 0.0-1.4) and a + LR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.32-1.45) for 30-day PE. The RGS score had a - LR of 0 (95% CI 0.0-0.65) and a + LR of 2.36 (95% CI 2.16-2.57) for 30-day PE. The combination of a low-risk HEAR score and negative PERC evaluation had a - LR of 0.25 (95% CI 0.08-0.76) and a + LR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.21-1.30) for 30-day MACE or PE.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a paramedic-obtained HEAR score and PERC evaluation performed best to exclude 30-day MACE and PE but was not sufficient for directing prehospital decision making.