A systematic review of the applicability of emergency department assessment of chest pain score-accelerated diagnostic protocol for risk stratification of patients with chest pain

The emergency department assessment of chest pain score-accelerated diagnostic protocol (EDACS-ADP) are commonly used for risk stratification in undifferentiated patients with acute chest pain. This systematic review aimed to investigate EDACS-ADP for risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for related studies without restrictions on the publication year. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and Stata 16.0 was used to determine the combined sensitivity, specificity, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR), and negative DLR. Twelve studies comprising 14 290 patients were identified. Of these, 7537 (52.74%) patients were considered low risk, and 67 (0.89%) had major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death within 30 days of the patients' ED presentation. EDACS-ADP showed a combined sensitivity of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.99); specificity, 0.58 (0.53-0.63); positive DLR, 2.34 (2.08-2.63); negative DLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.09); diagnostic odds ratio, 53.11 (26.45-106.63); and summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, 0.83 (0.79-0.86). Despite the large statistical heterogeneity of the results, EDACS-ADP identified a considerable number of low-risk patients for early discharge, with a specificity >50% and an incidence of MACE within 30-days of patients' ED presentation <1%. Thus, it is a useful tool with a potential for clinical application.

Validation and modification of HEART score components for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to clarify the relative prognostic value of each History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score component for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 3 months and validate the modified HEART (mHEART) score.

METHODS

This study evaluated the HEART score components for patients with chest symptoms visiting the emergency department from November 19, 2018 to November 19, 2019. All components were evaluated using logistic regression analysis and the scores for HEART, mHEART, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) were determined using the receiver operating characteristics curve.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into a derivation (809 patients) and a validation group (298 patients). In multivariate analysis, age did not show statistical significance in the detection of MACE within 3 months and the mHEART score was calculated after omitting the age component. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for HEART, mHEART and TIMI scores in the prediction of MACE within 3 months were 0.88, 0.91, and 0.83, respectively, in the derivation group; and 0.88, 0.91, and 0.81, respectively, in the validation group. When the cutoff value for each scoring system was determined for the maintenance of a negative predictive value for a MACE rate >99%, the mHEART score showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (97.4%, 54.2%, 23.7%, and 99.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the mHEART score better detects short-term MACE in high-risk patients and ensures the safe disposition of low-risk patients than the HEART and TIMI scores.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain (EDACS) Score: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluate current evidence for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with possible acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for publications reporting data on the EDACS score. No date restrictions were used. Two independent researchers assessed studies for eligibility, bias, and quality. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events occurring within 30 days. Heterogeneity was assessed and data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight diagnostic test accuracy studies including 11,578 patients and 1 randomized controlled trial including 558 patients were eligible for inclusion. On meta-analysis, the EDACS score had a pooled sensitivity of 96.1% (95% confidence interval 89.6% to 98.6%) and specificity of 61.1% (95% confidence interval 55.5% to 66.3%). A total of 55.0% of patients (n=6,370/11,578) were identified as low risk and eligible for early discharge. Sixty-two patients (0.54%) identified as low risk had an outcome of major adverse cardiac events within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

The EDACS score identified greater than 50% of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome as suitable for discharge after serial troponin sampling during 2 hours. Sensitivity for major adverse cardiac events was relatively high overall and may be acceptable to clinicians.

Comparative prospective study of the performance of chest pain scores and clinical assessment in an emergency department cohort in Singapore

OBJECTIVE

Chest pain scores allow emergency department (ED) physicians to identify low-risk patients for whom discharge can be safely expedited. Although these have been extensively validated in Western cohorts, data in patients of Asian heritage are lacking. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of HEART, ED Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) in risk-stratifying which chest pain patients are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days (composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization).

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort-study that enrolled 1200 patients was conducted by a large urban tertiary center in Singapore. Chest pain scores were reported before disposition by research assistants blinded to the physician's clinical assessment. Outcomes were assessed independently by a blinded cardiologist and emergency physician, while another cardiologist adjudicated in the case of discrepancies.

RESULTS

Of the 1195 patients analyzed, 135 (11.3%) suffered major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days. HEART, which ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 52.8% of patients with 88.1% sensitivity, and EDACS, which ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 57.5% of patients with 83.7% sensitivity, proved comparable to clinical judgment that ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 73.0% of patients with 85.5% sensitivity. GRACE was weaker-ruling out major adverse cardiovascular events in 79.2% of patients with a dismal sensitivity of 45.0%. The correlation-statistic for HEART (79.4%) was superior to EDACS (69.9%) and GRACE (69.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

HEART more accurately identified low-risk chest pain patients in an Asian ED, demonstrating comparable performance characteristics to clinical judgment. This has major implications on the use of chest pain scores to safely expedite disposition decisions for low-risk chest pain patients.