Prehospital risk stratification in patients with chest pain

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.

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.

Preclinical identification of acute coronary syndrome without high sensitivity troponin assays using machine learning algorithms

Preclinical management of patients with acute chest pain and their identification as candidates for urgent coronary revascularization without the use of high sensitivity troponin essays remains a critical challenge in emergency medicine. We enrolled 2760 patients (average age 70 years, 58.6% male) with chest pain and suspected ACS, who were admitted to the Emergency Department of the University Hospital Tübingen, Germany, between August 2016 and October 2020. Using 26 features, eight Machine learning models (non-deep learning models) were trained with data from the preclinical rescue protocol and compared to the "TropOut" score (a modified version of the "preHEART" score which consists of history, ECG, age and cardiac risk but without troponin analysis) to predict major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and acute coronary artery occlusion (ACAO). In our study population MACE occurred in 823 (29.8%) patients and ACAO occurred in 480 patients (17.4%). Interestingly, we found that all machine learning models outperformed the "TropOut" score. The VC and the LR models showed the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for predicting MACE (AUROC = 0.78) and the VC showed the highest AUROC for predicting ACAO (AUROC = 0.81). A SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analyses based on the XGB model showed that presence of ST-elevations in the electrocardiogram (ECG) were the most important features to predict both endpoints.

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.

Context-independent identification of myocardial ischemia in the prehospital ECG of chest pain patients

Non-traumatic chest pain is a frequent reason for an urgent ambulance visit of a patient by the emergency medical services (EMS). Chest pain (or chest pain-equivalent symptoms) can be innocent, but it can also signal an acute form of severe pathology that may require prompt intervention. One of these pathologies is cardiac ischemia, resulting from a disbalance between blood supply and demand. One cause of a diminished blood supply to the heart is acute coronary syndrome (ACS, i.e., cardiac ischemia caused by a reduced blood supply to myocardial tissue due to plaque instability and thrombus formation in a coronary artery). ACS is dangerous due to the unpredictable process that drives the supply problem and the high chance of fast hemodynamic deterioration (i.e., cardiogenic shock, ventricular fibrillation). This is why an ECG is made at first medical contact in most chest pain patients to include or exclude ischemia as the cause of their complaints. For speedy and adequate triaging and treatment, immediate assessment of this prehospital ECG is necessary, still during the ambulance ride. Human diagnostic efforts supported by automated interpretation algorithms seek to answer questions regarding the urgency level, the decision if and towards which healthcare facility the patient should be transported, and the indicated acute treatment and further diagnostics after arrival in the healthcare facility. In the case of an ACS, a catheter intervention room may be activated during the ambulance ride to facilitate the earliest possible in-hospital treatment. Prehospital ECG assessment and the subsequent triaging decisions are complex because chest pain is not uniquely associated with ACS. The differential diagnosis includes other cardiac, pulmonary, vascular, gastrointestinal, orthopedic, and psychological conditions. Some of these conditions may also involve ECG abnormalities. In practice, only a limited fraction (order of magnitude 10%) of the patients who are urgently transported to the hospital because of chest pain are ACS patients. Given the relatively low prevalence of ACS in this patient mix, the specificity of the diagnostic ECG algorithms should be relatively high to prevent overtreatment and overflow of intervention facilities. On the other hand, only a sufficiently high sensitivity warrants adequate therapy when needed. Here, we review how the prehospital ECG can contribute to identifying the presence of myocardial ischemia in chest pain patients. We discuss the various mechanisms of myocardial ischemia and infarction, the typical patient mix of chest pain patients, the shortcomings of the ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) ECG criteria to detect a completely occluded culprit artery, the OMI ECG criteria (including the STEMI-equivalent ECG patterns) in detecting completely occluded culprit arteries, and the promise of neural networks in recognizing ECG patterns that represent complete occlusions. We also discuss the relevance of detecting any ACS/ischemia, not necessarily caused by a total occlusion, in the prehospital ECG. In addition, we discuss how serial prehospital ECGs can contribute to ischemia diagnosis. Finally, we discuss the diagnostic contribution of a serial comparison of the prehospital ECG with a previously made nonischemic ECG of the patient.

Differences in risk and costs between prehospital identified low-risk men and women with chest pain

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in low-risk patient with a point-of-care troponin measurement reduces healthcare costs with similar safety to standard transfer to the hospital. Risk stratification is performed identical for men and women, despite important differences in clinical presentation, risk factors and age between men and women with NSTE-ACS. Our aim was to compare safety and healthcare costs between men and women in prehospital identified low-risk patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

METHODS

In the Acute Rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the (pre)hospital setting by HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin) score assessment and a single poInt of CAre troponin randomised trial, the HEAR (History, ECG, Age and Risk factors) score was assessed by ambulance paramedics in suspected NSTE-ACS patients. Low-risk patients (HEAR score ≤3) were included. In this substudy, men and women were compared. Primary endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), secondary endpoints were 30-day healthcare costs and the scores for the HEAR score components.

RESULTS

A total of 863 patients were included, of which 495 (57.4%) were women. Follow-up was completed in all patients. In the total population, MACE occurred in 6.8% of the men and 1.6% of the women (risk ratio (RR) 4.2 (95% CI 1.9 to 9.2, p<0.001)). In patients with ruled-out ACS (97% of the total population), MACE occurred in 1.4% of the men and in 0.2% of the women (RR 7.0 (95% CI 2.0 to 14.2, p<0.001). Mean healthcare costs were €504.55 (95% CI €242.22 to €766.87, p<0.001) higher in men, mainly related to MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prehospital population of low-risk suspected NSTE-ACS patients, 30-day incidence of MACE and MACE-related healthcare costs were significantly higher in men than in women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05466591.

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.

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.

Direct admission versus interhospital transfer for revascularisation in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The differences in outcomes and process parameters for NSTEMI patients who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre are largely unknown.

HYPOTHESIS

There are differences in process indicators, but not for clinical outcomes, for NSTEMI who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre.

METHODS

We aim to compare process indicators, costs and clinical outcomes of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients stratified by center of first presentation and revascularisation strategy. Hospital claim data from patients admitted with a NSTEMI between 2017 and 2019 were used for this study. Included patients were stratified by center of admission (intervention vs. general center) and subdivided by revascularisation strategy (PCI, CABG, or no revascularisation [noRevasc]). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included: duration between admission and diagnostic angiography and revascularisation, number of intracoronary procedures, clinical outcomes at 30 days (MACE: all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiac readmission) and total costs (accumulation of costs for hospital claims and interhospital ambulance rides).

RESULTS

A total of 9641 NSTEMI events (9167 unique patients) were analyzed of which 5399 patients (56%) were admitted at an intervention center and 4242 patients to a general center. Duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter at direct presentation at an intervention centre for all study groups (5 days [2-11] vs. 7 days [4-12], p < 0.001). For PCI, direct presentation at an intervention center yielded shorter time to diagnostic angiography (1 day [0-2] vs. 1 day [1-2], p < 0.01) and revascularisation (1 day [0-3] vs. 4 days [1-7], p < 0.001) and less intracoronary procedures per patient (2 [1-2] vs. 2 [2-2], p < 0.001). For CABG, time to revascularisation was shorter (8 days [5-12] vs. 10 days [7-14], p < 0.001). Total costs were significantly lower in case of direct presentation in an intervention center for all treatment groups €10.211 (8750-18.192) versus €13.741 (11.588-19.381), p < 0.001) while MACE was similar 11.8% versus 12.4%, p = 0.344).

CONCLUSION

NSTEMI patients who were directly presented to an intervention center account for shorter duration of hospitalization, less time to revascularisation, less interhospital transfers, less intracoronary procedures and lower costs compared to patients who present at a general center.

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.

Development of a machine-learning algorithm to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest for emergency department patients using a nationwide database

In this retrospective observational study, we aimed to develop a machine-learning model using data obtained at the prehospital stage to predict in-hospital cardiac arrest in the emergency department (ED) of patients transferred via emergency medical services. The dataset was constructed by attaching the prehospital information from the National Fire Agency and hospital factors to data from the National Emergency Department Information System. Machine-learning models were developed using patient variables, with and without hospital factors. We validated model performance and used the SHapley Additive exPlanation model interpretation. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred in 5431 of the 1,350,693 patients (0.4%). The extreme gradient boosting model showed the best performance with area under receiver operating curve of 0.9267 when incorporating the hospital factor. Oxygen supply, age, oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure, the number of ED beds, ED occupancy, and pulse rate were the most influential variables, in that order. ED occupancy and in-hospital cardiac arrest occurrence were positively correlated, and the impact of ED occupancy appeared greater in small hospitals. The machine-learning predictive model using the integrated information acquired in the prehospital stage effectively predicted in-hospital cardiac arrest in the ED and can contribute to the efficient operation of emergency medical systems.

Prehospital triage of patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Rationale and design of the TRIAGE-ACS study

BACKGROUND

Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are currently transported and admitted to the nearest emergency department (ED) for risk stratification, diagnostic workup and treatment. Although such patients with NSTE-ACS can benefit from direct transfer to a PCI center for early invasive treatment, no reliable prehospital triage tools are available. Recently, the PreHEART score has been validated in the PreHEART study for prehospital triage of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

METHODS

The primary objective of the TRIAGE-ACS study, a prospective cohort study, is to determine whether prehospital triage using the PreHEART score can significantly reduce time from first medical contact to final diagnostics and revascularization in patients in need of coronary revascularization. The first cohort (control cohort; n = 500) is observatory and is used as a reference group for the second cohort. In the second cohort (interventional cohort; n = 500) patients are stratified in the ambulance for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI center, based on the PreHEART score. These two cohorts will be compared with each other. In total, 1000 patients will be included. Follow-up for endpoints will be performed by reviewing the medical record after 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years.

CONCLUSION

The TRIAGE-ACS study is the first prospective study to investigate the impact of prehospital triage using the PreHEART score on time to final invasive diagnostics and treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS in need of revascularization by transferring high risk patients directly to a PCI center and patients at a low risk of having an NSTE-ACS to a non-PCI center. Such triage strategy could potentially result in optimization of regional care for all ACS patients.

Prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS.

RESULTS

In total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR-0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)).

DISCUSSION

Important study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome.

FUNDING

This study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122).

Unscheduled care pathways in patients with myocardial infarction in Scotland

Objective

Treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) requires rapid transfer of people with chest pain to hospital, however, unscheduled care pathways vary in their directness (the minimal number of contacts to hospital admission). The aim was to examine unscheduled care pathways and the associations with mortality in people admitted with MI.

Methods

Retrospective population study of all people admitted to Scottish hospitals with a diagnosis of MI between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017. Linked data for all National Health Service Scotland unscheduled care services (NHS24 telephone triage service, primary care out of hours, ambulance, emergency department (ED)) was used to define continuous unscheduled care pathways (pathways), which were categorised by initial contact, and whether they were ‘direct’ (had minimum number of contacts between first contact and admission). Analysis estimated ORs and 95% CIs in adjusted models in which all covariates were included.

Results

26 325 people admitted with MI (63.1% men, 61.6% aged 65+ years), of whom 5.6% died from coronary heart disease within 28 days. For 47.0%, the first unscheduled care contact was ambulance, 23.3% attended ED directly and 18.7% called telephone triage. 92.1% of pathways were direct. Pathways starting with telephone triage were more likely to be indirect compared with other initial contacts (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.97, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.40). Compared to direct pathways, indirect pathways starting with telephone triage were associated with higher mortality (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.40) as were indirect pathways starting with another service (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.01), but not direct pathways starting with telephone triage (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02).

Conclusion

Unscheduled care pathways leading to admission with MI in Scotland are usually direct, but those starting with telephone triage were more commonly indirect. Those indirect pathways were associated with higher mortality.

Role of HEART score in prediction of coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting with chest pain

Introduction. Chest pain (CP) diagnostics accuracy remains debatable for both general practitioners (GP) or emergency department (ED) physicians for patients in HEART score (HS) low- and intermediate-risk groups which prompted us to review our electronic database for all patients admitted via our center?s ED during 2014 to 2020 for CP and suspect acute coronary syndrome. Methods. Patients were divided in function of low- or intermediate-risk HS and assessed during a three month follow up for angiogram results, MACE, lab results and echo parameters. Results. Of 585 patients included, low-risk HS group (21,4%, 36% were women) had significant coronary disease on angiogram in 68%, while for intermediate-risk HS group (78.6%, with 32.6% women) it was for 18.4% of patients (p < 0,0005). Area under the ROC curve of HS in detecting patients with ischemic heart disease as a cause of CP was 0.771 (95% CI:0.772-0.820) with best cut-off point HS was calculated at 3.5. Sensitivity and specificity were 89.2% and 57.6% respectively. Adjusting for sex, lab results and HS, AUROC curve of this model was 0.828 (95% CI:0.786-0.869; p < 0,0005) with cut-off of 77.95. Sensitivity and specificity were 84,9% and 68% respectively. In the three-month follow-up post-discharge, there was a significant difference in MACE between groups (low-vs. intermediate-risk HS was 3.4 vs. 16.7% p < 0.05). Conclusion. HS for our CP patients admitted via our ED by GP and ED physicians? referral, provides a quick and reliable prediction of ischemic heart disease and MACE.