Dataset Information

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Triage decisions for chest pain patients receiving usual care are based on a dynamic and comprehensive strategy performed in the physician's mind. It remains controversial whether simple, structured risk tools can surpass real, complex judgments.

Hypothesis

The potentially used History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score would help identify low-risk patients for discharge.

Methods

Patients with acute, non-traumatic chest pain managed according to usual care were consecutively enrolled in a tertiary university hospital in China from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included death, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant coronary stenosis (>50%) within 30?days. We compared the efficacy and safety of usual care and the potentially used HEART score in this population.

Results

Of 2185 patients analyzed, 926 (42.4%) patients were directly discharged by usual care, whereas HEART?3 would have identified 524 (24.0%) patients as low-risk (P 3 groups were not significantly different (1.5% vs 2.7%, P =?.225). Negative predictive value (NPV) was higher with usual care than with the HEART score (P =?.003), but sensitivity was similar. For 340 patients with serial troponins, usual care was superior to the potentially used HEART score in regard to efficacy.

Conclusions

At this institution, usual care identified many more patients for discharge than the HEART score would have without apparently different outcomes in discharged patients with lower vs higher HEART scores. The HEART score would not appear to provide helpful risk stratification.

SUBMITTER: Wang G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7144490 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

Wang Guangmei G Zheng Wen W Wu Shuo S Ma Jingjing J Zhang He H Zheng Jiaqi J Wang Jiali J Xu Feng F Chen Yuguo Y

Clinical cardiology 20191223 4

<h4>Background</h4>Triage decisions for chest pain patients receiving usual care are based on a dynamic and comprehensive strategy performed in the physician's mind. It remains controversial whether simple, structured risk tools can surpass real, complex judgments.<h4>Hypothesis</h4>The potentially used History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score would help identify low-risk patients for discharge.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with acute, non-traumatic chest pain managed acc ...[more]

PMID: 31867780

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The HEART Pathway (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin) is an accelerated diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30-day death and myocardial infarction rate <1% in low-risk patients) and effective (reduces 30-day hospitalizations) in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. METHODS:A prospective pre-post study was conducted at 3 US sites among 8474 adult emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and had no evidence of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction on ECG. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After accelerated diagnostic protocol integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. RESULTS:Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (55.6% versus 61.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87). During the index visit, more MIs were detected in the postimplementation cohort (6.6% versus 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33). CONCLUSIONS:HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02056964.

Project description:High-sensitivity troponin assay brought new challenges as we detect elevated concentration in many other diseases, and it became difficult to distinguish the real cause of this elevation. In this notion, diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a challenge in emergency department (ED). We aim to examine different approaches for rule-in and rule-out of ACS using risk scores, copeptin, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). A prospective observational study was designed to evaluate chest pain patients. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ED with a chief complaint of chest pain due to any cause were included. All patients were followed-up for 6 months after discharge for major adverse cardiovascular events and readmissions. Admission data, ED processes, and diagnoses were analyzed. One hundred forty-six patients were included, average age was 63 ± 13.4 years, and 95 (65.1%) were male. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) scores showed good prognostic abilities, but HEART combination with copeptin improves diagnoses of myocardial infarction (area under the curve [AUC] 0.764 vs AUC 0.864 P = .0008). Patients with elevated copeptin were older, had higher risk scores, and were more likely to be admitted to hospital and diagnosed with ACS in ED. For copeptin, AUC was 0.715 (95% confidence interval 0.629-0.803), and for combination with troponin, AUC of 0.770 (0.703-0.855) did not improve rule-in of myocardial infarction. High-sensitivity troponin I assay alongside prior stroke, history of carotid stenosis, dyslipidemia, use of diuretics, and electrocardiogram changes (left bundle branch block or ST depression) are good predictors of myocardial infarction (χ² = 52.29, AUC = 0.875 [0.813-0.937], P < .001). The regression analysis showed that combination of copeptin and CCTA without significant stenosis can be used for ACS rule-out (χ² = 26.36, P < .001, AUC = 0.772 [0.681-0.863], negative predictive value of 96.25%). For rule-in of ACS, practitioner should consider not only scores for risk stratification but carefully analyze medical history and nonspecific electrocardiogram changes and even with normal troponin results, we strongly suggest thorough evaluation in chest pain unit. For rule-out of ACS combination of copeptin and CCTA holds great potential.

Project description:BackgroundA significant number of chest pain patients had previous cardiac imaging tests (CIT) performed before being presented to the Emergency Department (ED). The HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) score has been used to risk-stratify chest pain patients in the ED, but not particularly for patients with CIT performed. We aim to modify the current HEART score with the addition of most recent CIT findings (referred to as HEART2 score), to predict a 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among ED chest pain patients, compare the performance accuracy of using HEART versus HEART2 score for 30-day MACE outcome predictions, and further determine the value of HEART2 in a subset group of ED chest pain patients (i.e., ones with previous CIT).MethodsThis is a single-center observational study. We included chest pain patients with HEART scores calculated during their index ED visits. A modified HEART2 score was developed with the addition of CIT findings as one of the HEART2 components. Patients were divided into three groups, including low (≤ 3), moderate (4-6), and high-risk HEART/HEART2 scores (≥ 7). MACE occurrence of a patient with different risks of HEART and HEART2 scores and overall performance accuracy of HEART versus HEART2 score predicting MACE outcomes were compared.ResultsWe included a total of 9419 chest pain patients at ED, among which one out of five patients (1874/9419) had previous CIT performed. Fewer (38.2%) of such patients had low-risk HEART scores in comparison to 55.5% of low-risk HEART2 scores (p < 0.001). The MACE outcomes were similar in low-risk HEART patients compared with low-risk HEART2 patients (2.2% versus 3.1%, p = 0.3021). The overall performance accuracy of using the HEART2 score to stratify chest pain patients with previous CIT was better than using the HEART score's (AUC 0.74 versus 0.71, p = 0.0082).ConclusionsUsing the HEART2 score might be suitable to stratify low-to-moderate risk chest pain patients at ED with a similar 30-days MACE occurrence compared to the HEART score. More importantly, with the use of similar low-risk criteria (HEART2 ≤ 3), over 45% more chest pain patients with previous CIT performed could be discharged directly from ED.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Dataset Information

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

Background

Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets