Dataset Information

Comparison of accelerated diagnostic pathways for acute chest pain risk stratification.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The History Electrocardiogram Age Risk factor Troponin (HEART) Pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) are validated accelerated diagnostic pathways designed to risk stratify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Data from large multisite prospective studies comparing these accelerated diagnostic pathways are limited.

Methods

The HEART Pathway Implementation is a prospective three-site cohort study, which accrued adults with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome. Physicians completed electronic health record HEART Pathway and EDACS risk assessments on participants. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days were determined using electronic health record, insurance claims and death index data. Test characteristics for detection of major adverse cardiac events were calculated for both accelerated diagnostic pathways and McNemar's tests were used for comparisons.

Results

5799 patients presenting to the emergency department were accrued, of which HEART Pathway and EDACS assessments were completed on 4399. Major adverse cardiac events at 30 days occurred in 449/4399 (10.2%). The HEART Pathway identified 38.4% (95% CI 37.0% to 39.9%) of patients as low-risk compared with 58.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 59.6%) identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.9%) of patients classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway compared with 1.0% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.5%) of patients identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Thus, the HEART Pathway had a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.8%) for major adverse cardiac events compared with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.3%) for EDACS.

Conclusions

EDACS identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the HEART Pathway, but has a higher missed major adverse cardiac events rate at 30 days. Physicians will need to consider their risk tolerance when deciding whether to adopt the HEART Pathway or EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway.

Trial registration number

NCT02056964.

SUBMITTER: Stopyra J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7962144 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe contemporary characteristics and diagnoses in prehospital patients with chest pain and to identify factors suitable for the early recognition of high-risk and low-risk conditions.DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingTwo centre study in a Swedish county emergency medical services (EMS) organisation.ParticipantsUnselected inclusion of 2917 patients with chest pain contacting the EMS due to chest pain during 2018.Primary outcome measuresLow-risk or high-risk condition, that is, occurrence of time-sensitive diagnosis on hospital discharge.ResultsOf included EMS missions, 68% concerned patients with a low-risk condition without medical need of acute hospital treatment in hindsight. Sixteen per cent concerned patients with a high-risk condition in need of rapid transport to hospital care. Numerous variables with significant association with low-risk or high-risk conditions were found. In total high-risk and low-risk prediction models shared six predictive variables of which ST-depression on ECG and age were most important. Previously known risk factors such as history of acute coronary syndrome, diabetes and hypertension had no predictive value in the multivariate analyses. Some aspects of the symptoms such as pain intensity, pain in the right arm and paleness did on the other hand appear to be helpful. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of low-risk candidates was 0.786 and for high-risk candidates 0.796. The addition of troponin in a subset increased the AUC to >0.8 for both.ConclusionsA majority of patients with chest pain cared for by the EMS suffer from a low-risk condition and have no prognostic reason for acute hospital care given their diagnosis on hospital discharge. A smaller proportion has a high-risk condition and is in need of prompt specialist care. Building models with good accuracy for prehospital identification of these groups is possible. The use of risk stratification models could make a more personalised care possible with increased patient safety.