Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We compared performance of nine risk scores for coronary heart disease (CHD) among patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated chest pain of possible coronary origin.

Methods

A retrospective study was undertaken of adult patients presenting with chest pain to atertiary hospital ED with no electrocardiographs or troponin results diagnostic of ischemic chest pain (ICP) or acute coronary syndrome at ED presentation, and no clearly evident noncoronary diagnosis. Risk scores were applied using cut-points distinguishing low- from high-risk patients according to discharge diagnosis of noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) or ICP, respectively. A lower odds ratio (OR) for ICP denoted lower risk for ICP. Score performance was compared using area under receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUC) and predictive values.

Results

A total of 401 patients were studied, of whom 123 (30.7%) had ICP as final diagnosis. Among the nine risk scores, those with greatest ability to detect low-risk patients were The North American Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) score (OR=0.35, 95% CI=0.27-0.46); History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score (OR=0.43; 95% CI=0.35-0.52); and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score (OR=0.49; 95% CI=0.41-0.58). Discrimination between patients with NCCP and those with ICP was greatest for HEART score (AUC=0.82; 95% CI=0.78-0.86) and lowest for Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients with Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins (ADAPT) score (AUC=0.63; 95% CI=0.58-0.69). In excluding ICP, ADAPT had negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (miss rate 0%) but classified only 1.7% of patients as low risk, compared to NACPR with NPV 98% (miss rate 2%), classifying 10.2% as low risk, and HEART with NPV 94% (miss rate 6%), classifying 32.4% as low risk.

Conclusion

The NACPR risk score maximized yield of low-risk patients with lowest miss rate for ICP, while HEART score classified highest proportion of low-risk patients but with a higher miss rate.

SUBMITTER: Wamala H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6296689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score is recommended for stratifying chest pain. However, there are six formulas used to calculate the GRACE score for different outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including death (Dth) or composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), while in hospital (IH), within 6 months after discharge (OH6m) or from admission to 6 months later (IH6m). We aimed to perform the first comprehensive evaluation and comparison of six GRACE models to predict 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED).MethodsPatients with acute chest pain were consecutively recruited from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017 from the EDs of two public hospitals in China. The 30-day MACEs included death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), emergency revascularization, cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. The correlation, calibration, discrimination, reclassification and diagnostic accuracy at certain cutoff values of six GRACE models were evaluated. Comparisons with the History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores were conducted.ResultsA total of 2886 patients were analyzed, with 590 (20.4%) patients experiencing outcomes. The GRACE (IHDthMI), GRACE (IH6mDthMI), GRACE (IHDth), GRACE (IH6mDth), GRACE (OH6mDth) and GRACE (OH6mDthMI) showed positive linear correlations with the actual MACE rates (r ≥ 0.568, P < 0.001). All these models had good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P ≥ 0.073) except GRACE (IHDthMI) (P < 0.001). The corresponding C-statistics were 0.83(0.81,0.84), 0.82(0.81,0.83), 0.75(0.73,0.76), 0.73(0.72,0.75), 0.72(0.70,0.73) and 0.70(0.68,0.71), respectively, first two of which were comparable to HEART (0.82, 0.80-0.83) and superior to TIMI (0.71, 0.69-0.73). With a sensitivity ≥95%, GRACE (IHDthMI) ≤81 and GRACE (IH6mDthMI) ≤79 identified 868(30%) and 821(28%) patients as low risk, respectively, which were significantly better than other GRACEs and HEART ≤3(22%). With a specificity ≥95%, GRACE (IHDthMI) > 186 and GRACE (IH6mDthMI) > 161 could recognize 12% and 11% patients as high risk, which were greater than other GRACEs, HEART ≥8(9%) and TIMI ≥5(8%).ConclusionsIn this Chinese setting, certain strengths of GRACE models beyond HEART and TIMI scores were still noteworthy for stratifying chest pain patients. The validation and reasonable application of appropriate GRACE models in the evaluation of undifferentiated chest pain should be recommended.

Project description:Circulating microRNA has recently emerged as a promising biomarker for cardiovascular disease. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of circulating miR-133a as a marker of acute myocardial infarction in acute chest pain patients undergoing coronary angiography.Plasma was collected from 312 patients with chest pain on admission in the emergency department and 67 healthy controls. MiR-133a was detected using real-time quantitative PCR and enhanced accu-TnI, creatinine kinase-MB mass, and myoglobin were measured by immunoassay. End-point events (serious adverse cardiovascular events which require hospitalization or cardiovascular death) were examined in the AMI (acute myocardical infarction) group within 1, 6, 12, and 24 months.The miR-133a level was higher in AMI patients than in non-AMI patients (P?<?0.001). In the ROC analysis, the sensitivity of miR-133a in diagnosis of AMI is 0.61 and the specificity is 0.68. In the prognostic analysis, only 1 endpoint event was observed in the non-AMI group; the amount of cases with end-point events in the AMI group at 1,6,12, and 24 months were 8, 19, 28, and 35, respectively. The cutoff value of miR-133a was determined using the median value of the AMI group and separated the patients into a positive group and a negative group. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed no significant difference in survival was detected in AMI patients between the miR-133a positive group and negative group after follow-up (12-month: x2?=?1.353, P?=?0.245; 24-month: x2?=?3.722, P?=?0.054). After adjusting for age, gender, Killip classes, prior myocardiac infarction history, myoglobin, LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction), diabetes, hypertension, smoking and systolic blood pressure, miR133a had a significant association with the risk of events at 12 months (HR?=?2.869, P?=?0.024) and 24 months (HR?=?3.936, P?=?0.001).In patients undergoing coronary angiography, circulating miR-133a is upregulated in AMI patients, but it does not provide enough accuracy for clinical AMI diagnosis because it also rises in unstable angina patients. Its prognostic value in AMI is uncertain mainly for the number of cases with end-point event was small and may be further validated in a larger, better designed study.

Project description:BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess whether there are disparities in incidence rates, care, and outcomes for patients with chest pain attended by emergency medical services according to socioeconomic status (SES) in a universal health coverage setting. METHODS AND RESULTS This was a population-based cohort study of individually linked ambulance, emergency, hospital admission, and mortality data in the state of Victoria, Australia, from January 2015 to June 2019 that included 183 232 consecutive emergency medical services attendances for adults with nontraumatic chest pain (mean age 62 [SD 18] years; 51% women) and excluded out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Age-standardized incidence of chest pain was higher for patients residing in lower SES areas (lowest SES quintile 1595 versus highest SES quintile 760 per 100 000 person-years; P<0.001). Patients of lower SES were less likely to attend metropolitan, private, or revascularization-capable hospitals and had greater comorbidities. In multivariable models adjusted for clinical characteristics and final diagnosis, lower SES quintiles were associated with increased risks of 30-day and long-term mortality, readmission for chest pain and acute coronary syndrome, lower acuity emergency department triage categorization, emergency department length of stay >4 hours, and emergency department or emergency medical services discharge without hospital admission and were inversely associated with use of prehospital ECGs and transfer to a revascularization-capable hospital for patients presenting to non-percutaneous coronary intervention centers. CONCLUSIONS In this study, lower SES was associated with a higher incidence of chest pain presentations to emergency medical services and differences in care and outcomes. These findings suggest that substantial disparities for socioeconomically disadvantaged chest pain cohorts exist, even in the setting of universal health care access.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.DesignRetrospective, cohort study.SettingRegional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands.ParticipantsConsecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain.Main outcome measuresDiscriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact.ResultsA total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates.ConclusionWhile available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.

Project description:BackgroundChest pain is amongst the most common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). There are many causes of chest pain, and it is important for the emergency physician to quickly and accurately diagnose life threatening causes such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Multiple clinical decision tools have been developed to assist clinicians in risk stratifying patients with chest. There is growing recognition that machine learning (ML) will have a significant impact on the practice of medicine in the near future and may assist with diagnosis and risk stratification. This systematic review aims to evaluate how ML has been applied to adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated chest pain and assess if ML models show improved performance when compared to physicians or current risk stratification techniques.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review of journal articles that applied a ML technique to an adult patient presenting to an emergency department with undifferentiated chest pain. Multiple databases were searched from inception through to November 2020. In total, 3361 articles were screened, and 23 articles were included. We did not conduct a metanalysis due to a high level of heterogeneity between studies in both their methods, and reporting. The most common primary outcomes assessed were diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12 studies), and prognosis of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (6 studies). There were 14 retrospective studies and 5 prospective studies. Four studies reported the development of a machine learning model retrospectively then tested it prospectively. The most common machine learning methods used were artificial neural networks (14 studies), random forest (6 studies), support vector machine (5 studies), and gradient boosting (2 studies). Multiple studies achieved high accuracy in both the diagnosis of AMI in the ED setting, and in predicting mortality and composite outcomes over various timeframes. ML outperformed existing risk stratification scores in all cases, and physicians in three out of four cases. The majority of studies were single centre, retrospective, and without prospective or external validation. There were only 3 studies that were considered low risk of bias and had low applicability concerns. Two studies reported integrating the ML model into clinical practice.ConclusionsResearch on applications of ML for undifferentiated chest pain in the ED has been ongoing for decades. ML has been reported to outperform emergency physicians and current risk stratification tools to diagnose AMI and predict MACE but has rarely been integrated into practice. Many studies assessing the use of ML in undifferentiated chest pain in the ED have a high risk of bias. It is important that future studies make use of recently developed standardised ML reporting guidelines, register their protocols, and share their datasets and code. Future work is required to assess the impact of ML model implementation on clinical decision making, patient orientated outcomes, and patient and physician acceptability.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD42020184977.