Comparison of nine coronary risk scores in evaluating patients presenting to hospital with undifferentiated chest pain

Comparison of heart, grace and TIMI scores to predict major adverse cardiac events from chest pain in a Spanish health care region

Acute non-traumatic chest pain (ANTCP) is the second cause of consultation in the Emergency department (ED). About 70% of all Acute Myocardial Infarctions present as non persistent ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in the electrocardiogram. Our aim was to compare whether the HEART risk score is more effective than the GRACE and TIMI scores for the diagnosis and prognosis of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at six weeks in patients with ANTCP and NSTE-ACS. A prospective cohort study was conducted with patients with ANTCP that attended an ED and a Primary Care Emergency Center (PCEC) from April 2018 to December 2020. The primary outcome was MACE at six weeks. Diagnostic performance was calculated for each scale as the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and predictive values (PV). Qualitative variables were compared using the Chi-square test, and continuous variables were compared using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. We adjusted a logistic regression for risk groups, age, and gender to determine the effect of the HEART, GRACE, and TIMI scores on MACE. The degree of agreement (kappa index) was calculated in the categorical classification of patients according to the three risk scales. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed for each scale and were compared using partial likelihood ratio tests for non-nested models. From a sample of 317 patients with ANTCP, 14.82% had MACE at six weeks. The AUC was 0.743 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) for the HEART score, 0.717 (95% CI 0.64-0.79) for the TIMI score, and 0.649 (95% CI 0.561-0.738) for the GRACE score. The HEART scale identified low-risk patients with a higher SE and negative PV than the GRACE and TIMI scores. The HEART scale was better than the GRACE and TIMI scores at diagnosing and predicting MACE at six weeks in patients with ANTCP and probable NSTE-ACS. It was also a reliable tool for risk stratification in low-risk patients. Its application is feasible in EDs and PCECs, avoiding the need for complementary tests and their associated costs without compromising patient health.

E-HEART score: A novel scoring system for undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. As there is an increase in the global burden of ischemic heart disease, there are multiple scoring systems established in the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify and manage acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with chest pain. The objective of this study was to integrate point-of-care echo into the existing history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score and evaluate a novel scoring system, the echo HEART (E-HEART) score in risk stratification of patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain to the ED. The E-HEART Score was also compared with existing traditional scoring systems for risk-stratifying acute chest pain.

METHODS

A diagnostic accuracy study involving 250 patients with chest pain at the ED of a single tertiary care teaching hospital in India was conducted. The emergency physicians assessed the E-HEART score after integrating their point-of-care echo/focused echo findings into the conventional HEART score on presentation. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 4 weeks of initial presentation. The accuracy of the E-HEART score was compared with other conventional risk stratification scoring systems such as the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), history, electrocardiogram, age, and risk factors, Troponin Only Manchester ACS (T-MACS), and HEART scores.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients with a median age of 53 years (42.25-63.00) were part of the study. Low E-HEART scores (values 0-3) were calculated in 121 patients with no occurrence of MACE in this category. Eighty-one patients with moderate E-HEART scores (4-6) were found to have 30.9% MACE. In 48 patients with high E-HEART scores (values 7-11), MACE occurred in 97.9%. The area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of E-HEART score is 0.992 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-0.99), which is significantly higher than AUROC values for HEART (0.978), TIMI (0.889), T-MACS (0.959), and HEAR (0.861), respectively (P < 0.0001). At a cutoff of E-HEART score >6, it accurately predicted ACS with a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 99% with a diagnostic accuracy of 97%.

CONCLUSION

The E-HEART score gives the clinician a quick and accurate forecast of outcomes in undifferentiated chest pain presenting to the ED. Low E-HEART scores (0-3) have an extremely low probability for short-term MACE and may aid in faster disposition from the ED. The elevated risk of MACE in patients with high E-HEART scores (7-11) may facilitate more aggressive workup measures and avoid disposition errors. E-HEART is an easily adaptable scoring system with improved accuracy compared to conventional scoring systems.

Comparison of the T-MACS score with the TIMI score in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines recommend the use of risk scoring in patients with chest pain. In this study, we aimed to compare the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk index (TIMI) score with the Troponin Only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome Score (T-MACS) score and to investigate the usability of the T-MACS score in the emergency department.

METHODS

In our study; The TIMI and T-MACS scores of 310 patients with suspected NSTEMI who applied to the emergency department with chest pain and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were prospectively evaluated. The primary outcome was MACE at 30 days including acute coronary syndromes, need for revascularization and deaths. Descriptive data and TIMI and T-MACS scores for predicting MACE and ACS was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis was also performed to determine TIMI and T-MACS risk class.

RESULTS

In our study, the mean age of the patients was 49.7 ± 19.4 years, the 1-month mortality rate was 1.3%, majör adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 6.5%, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) rate was 5.5%. T-MACS risk class for predicting MACE sensitivity 100%, selectivity 51.72, PPV 12.5% (for very low risk), NPV was calculated as 100%; sensitivity for TIMI risk class low risk 35%, selectivity 88.97%, PPV was calculated as 17.9%, NPV was calculated as 95.2%. T-MACS high risk class for predicting MACE; sensitivity was 60%, selectivity 99.66%, PPV 92.3% and NPV was 97.3%; TIMI high risk class for predicting MACE; sensitivity was 10%, selectivity was 97.93%, PPV was 25% and NPV was 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings obtained in this study suggest that the T-MACS score is more successful than the TIMI score in determining the low risk (very low risk for T-MACS score), high risk, and estimated 1-month MACE risk in cases who presented to the emergency department with chest pain.

Additive value of bioclinical risk scores to high sensitivity troponins-only strategy in acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Discharging patients home as quickly as possible, or gaining the ability to eliminate a serious event is a goal requested by clinicians in the emergency department (ED). For this, risk scores, taking into account co-morbidities, have been established. The aim of our study consists to evaluate in patients with chest pain admitted in ED the risk stratification obtained with clinico-biological risk scores (CCS, GRACE score, TIMI score and HEART score) using Ortho hs-cTnI assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Illkirch, France) on the Vitros 3600® instrument or Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module (Roche diagnostics, Meylan, France), with comparison to hs-cTn-only strategy. Prognostic performances were evaluated according to AMI with or without STEMI, and deaths during hospitalization.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the ED presenting chest pain or symptoms suggesting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Hs-cTnT was performed on a Roche hs-cTnT assay on the Cobas8000/e801® module using a fifth-generation assay and was used for the clinical diagnosis. In addition, hs-cTnI was tested using Ortho hs-cTnI assay on the Vitros 3600® analyzer. Retrospectively, we collected the variables needed for each score in clinical records. Our endpoint were occurrence of AMI in patients with chest pain after presentation to the ED and all cause death during the hospitalization.

RESULTS

We enrolled 160 patients with suspected ACS. The adjudicated diagnosis was AMI in 37 patients (with 9 STEMI and 28 NSTEMI), cardiac pathologies in 57 patients and other causes in 66 patients. The majority of patients were classified at high risk for each risk scores (from 42% to 68%) whatever the considered hs-cTn assay, except for TIMI score. Cohen's kappa agreements with GRACE, TIMI and HEART scores were excellent between Roche hs-cTnT vs Ortho hs-cTnI. The AUC of the HEART score was highest for both hs-cTn to predict AMI, NSTEMI or death, with no statistical difference according to the hs-cTn (p = NS) assay used. NRI analysis confirmed the interest of HEART score which improved individual risk prediction for AMI (or NSTEMI) and death.

CONCLUSION

In view of our results, the decision aids using only biological variables (hs-cTn-only strategy and CCS) would seem more effective for rule-out AMI whereas bioclinical risk scores could better identify patients at low and high risk for mortality. In consequence, risk scores taking in account comorbidities, appear necessary to determine the outcome and thus to adapt the therapeutic options. It is interesting to note that the HEART score could be useful for the rule out AMI but also for the risk prediction as confirmed by the NRI.

An Updated Healthcare System-Wide Clinical Pathway for Managing Patients With Chest Pain and Acute Coronary Syndromes

Clinical pathways reinforce best practices and help healthcare institutions standardize care delivery. The NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center has used such a pathway for the management of patients with chest pain and acute coronary syndromes for almost 2 decades. A multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders serially updates the algorithm according to new data and recently published guidelines. Herein, we present the 2019 version of the clinical pathway. We explain the rationale for changes to the algorithm and describe our experience expanding the pathway to all the 8 affiliated institutions within the NewYork Presbyterian healthcare system.