RESUMEN

How to cite this article: Samavedam S. Getting to the HEART of Major Adverse Cardiac Events. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(8):724-725.

RESUMEN

Alfaxalone is a neuroactive steroid that modulates the GABAA receptor, which has shown recent widespread use as a sedative and anesthetic agent in cats, especially in patients being screened for cardiovascular disease. This prospective, partially blinded, randomized experimental study aimed to determine if sedation with alfaxalone would alter the appearance of the cardiac silhouette or pulmonary vasculature on thoracic radiographs or echocardiographic indices of cardiac or pulmonary vascular size. Eleven apparently healthy adult cats were recruited from a research colony. Four-view thoracic radiographs and an echocardiogram were performed at baseline and following a 5 mg/kg intramuscular dose of alfaxalone. Vertebral heart score (VHS) and cranial and caudal lobar pulmonary vascular measurements were obtained at both time points by two independent blinded observers, and these were analyzed using two-way ANOVA. The nonblinded echocardiographer obtained echocardiographic measurements at both time points, which were analyzed using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test. No significant differences were identified in VHS measurements or echocardiographic parameters between baseline and sedated cats. In healthy cats, alfaxalone does not appear to significantly affect the cardiovascular structures evaluated via thoracic radiography or echocardiography.

RESUMEN

Introduction Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), encompassing non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina (UA), present significant challenges in risk assessment and management, particularly in resource-constrained environments like India. The burden of cardiovascular diseases in such regions necessitates cost-effective and readily accessible tools for risk stratification. Previous research has emphasized the role of inflammatory markers in coronary artery disease (CAD), prompting investigations into simple and affordable biomarkers for risk assessment. Platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have emerged as potential biomarkers for thrombotic activity in cardiac illnesses, offering simplicity, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness in risk assessment making them particularly valuable in resource-poor settings like India, where advanced diagnostic tools may be limited. Objective This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of PLR and NLR as predictors of high-risk HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) scores in patients with NSTEMI and UA. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Saveetha Medical College and Hospitals in Chennai, India, from March 2021 to September 2022. The study included 288 adults diagnosed with NSTEMI or UA, aged 18 years and above. The inclusion criteria comprised patients with confirmed diagnoses of NSTEMI or UA based on clinical symptoms, electrocardiographic findings, and cardiac biomarker elevation. The exclusion criteria encompassed patients with active infections, acute traumatic injuries, end-stage renal disease, malignant neoplasms, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In addition to the HEART score, PLR, and NLR were computed to assess the prognosis of patients admitted to the Saveetha Medical College and Hospitals. Results The statistical analysis revealed significant correlations between PLR, NLR, and HEART score risk categories. The Pearson's correlation coefficient indicated strong associations between PLR/NLR values and HEART score risk groups, suggesting their potential as predictive markers for adverse clinical outcomes. Additionally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated significant differences in PLR/NLR values across different HEART score risk categories, further highlighting their relevance in risk stratification. The effect sizes for these correlations were moderate to large, indicating clinically meaningful associations between PLR/NLR and cardiovascular risk. Conclusion In cases of NSTEMI and UA, PLR and NLR show potential as simple and inexpensive indicators of high-risk patients. By leveraging these inexpensive biomarkers, healthcare providers can enhance risk assessment and prognostication in patients presenting with ACS, facilitating timely interventions and tailored management strategies.

RESUMEN

Background: This study assesses how ambulance paramedics using the modified HEART-score with a point-of-care cardiac troponin (cTn) compare to the emergency physicians using the modified HEART-score with a high-sensitive cTn (hs-cTn) in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), focusing on interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. Methods: In this prospective multicenter cohort, we compare four cTn testing strategies (serial point of care and hs-cTn cTn measurement) with and without the HEART-score. Outcomes include the HEART-score's interobserver agreement, NSTE-ACS at discharge, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after 30 days, and diagnostic accuracy of the different strategies. Conclusion: The POPular HEART study aims to improve NSTE-ACS diagnostic pathways, promoting pre-hospital detection and ruling out of NSTE-ACS to minimize unnecessary hospitalizations and associated costs.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04851418 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What & why? Many people visit the emergency department (ED) due to chest pain, often worried about the possibility of a heart attack. While acute heart attacks can often be detected through an electrocardiogram (ECG; a test of the heart's electrical activity), a significant number of patients with a heart attack have a normal ECG. These patients require further testing to measure cardiac troponin (cTn; an indicator of heart damage) in the hospital to rule out a heart attack, known as non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). To improve diagnosis and care for these patients, we compared two approaches: ambulance paramedics using a quick bedside cTn test and the HEART-score, versus hospital doctors using a more sensitive cTn test with the HEART-score. The HEART score combines factors like the patient's medical history, ECG results, age, risk factors, and cTn levels to assess the risk of heart problems. In this comparison, the key difference lies in how cTn levels are measured ­ either through a quick finger prick test in an ambulance using a point-of-care device or a more detailed analysis in a hospital laboratory.How? We focused on patients visited by emergency medical services for chest pain suspected of a heart attack and transported to the hospital. We assessed the quick bedside test by paramedics and the detailed hospital test by doctors, alongside the use of the HEART score in both settings. Our evaluation looked at the agreement between these methods and their effectiveness in identifying or excluding an NSTE-ACS.What? Our research, known as the POPular HEART study, seeks to simplify the early identification or rule-out of an NSTE-ACS in patients with chest pain directly by ambulance. This approach aims to decrease unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce healthcare costs.Main points We're exploring innovative methods to safely identify patients with a very low risk of NSTE-ACS in individuals with chest pain outside the hospital. Our objective is to safely minimize hospital admissions that may not be necessary, thereby saving resources. By doing so, we aim to alleviate the pressure on EDs and contribute to more cost-effective healthcare.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is among the most common reasons for presentation to the emergency department (ED) worldwide. Additional studies on most cost-effective ways of differentiating serious vs. benign causes of chest pain are needed. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel risk stratification pathway utilizing 5th generation high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay (Hs-cTnT) and HEART score (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) in assessing nontraumatic chest pain patients in reducing ED resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed 6 months prior to and after the implementation of a novel risk stratification pathway that combined hs-cTnT with HEART score to guide evaluation of adult patients presenting with nontraumatic chest pain at a large academic quaternary care ED. Primary outcome was ED length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included cardiology consult rates, admission rates, number of ED boarders, and number of eloped patients. RESULTS: A total of 1707 patients and 1529 patients were included pre- and postimplementation, respectively. Median overall ED LOS decreased from 317 to 286 min, an absolute reduction of 31 min (95% confidence interval 22-41 min), after pathway implementation (p < 0.001). Furthermore, cardiology consult rate decreased from 26.9% to 16.0% (p < 0.0001), rate of admission decreased from 30.1% to 22.7% (p < 0.0001), and number of ED boarders as a proportion of all nontraumatic chest pain patients decreased from 25.13% preimplementation to 18.63% postimplementation (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of our novel chest pain pathway improved numerous ED throughput metrics in the evaluation of nontraumatic chest pain patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The HEART score is a clinical decision tool that stratifies patients into categories of low, moderate, and high-risk of major adverse cardiac events in the emergency department (ED) but cannot identify underlying cardiovascular disease in patients without prior history. The presence of atherosclerosis can easily be detected at the bedside using carotid ultrasound. Plaque quantification is well established, and plaque composition can be assessed using ultrasound grayscale pixel distribution analysis. This study aimed to determine whether carotid plaque burden and/or composition correlated with risk of events and could improve the sensitivity of the HEART score in risk stratifying ED patients with chest pain. METHODS: The HEART score was calculated based on history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and initial troponin in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain (n = 321). Focused carotid ultrasound was performed, and maximum plaque height and total plaque area were used to determine plaque burden (quantity). Plaque composition (% blood, fat, muscle, fibrous, calcium-like tissue) was assessed by pixel distribution analysis. RESULTS: Carotid plaque height and area increased with HEART score (p < 0.0001). Carotid plaque % fibrous and % calcium also increased with HEART score. The HEART score had a higher area under the curve (AUC = 0.84) in predicting 30-day events compared to the plaque variables alone (AUCs < 0.70). Integrating plaque quantity into the HEART score slightly increased test sensitivity (62-69%) for 30-day events and reclassified 11 moderate-risk participants to high-risk (score 7-10). CONCLUSION: Plaque burden with advanced composition features (fibrous and calcium) was associated with increased HEART score. Integrating plaque assessment into the HEART score identified subclinical atherosclerosis in moderate-risk patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le score HEART est un outil de décision clinique qui stratifie les patients en catégories de risque faible, modéré et élevé d'événements cardiaques indésirables majeurs à l'urgence (ED), mais ne peut pas identifier les maladies cardiovasculaires sous-jacentes chez les patients sans antécédents. La présence d'athérosclérose peut facilement être détectée au chevet du patient à l'aide de l'échographie carotide. La quantification de la plaque est bien établie et la composition de la plaque peut être évaluée à l'aide d'une analyse échographique de la distribution des pixels en niveaux de gris. Cette étude visait à déterminer si la charge et/ou la composition de la plaque carotidienne étaient corrélées avec le risque d'événements et pouvaient améliorer la sensibilité du score HEART chez les patients souffrant de douleurs thoraciques stratifiés. MéTHODES: Le score HEART a été calculé sur la base des antécédents, de l'électrocardiogramme, de l'âge, des facteurs de risque et de la troponine initiale chez les patients présentant une douleur thoracique à l'urgence (n = 321). L'échographie carotidienne focalisée a été effectuée, et la hauteur maximale de la plaque et la surface totale de la plaque ont été utilisées pour déterminer la charge de plaque (quantité). La composition de la plaque (% de sang, de graisse, de muscle, de tissu fibreux, de type calcique) a été évaluée par analyse de la distribution des pixels. RéSULTATS: La hauteur et la surface de la plaque carotide ont augmenté avec le score HEART (p<0,0001). Le pourcentage de plaque carotide fibreuse et le pourcentage de calcium ont également augmenté avec le score HEART. Le score HEART avait une zone plus élevée sous la courbe (ASC = 0,84) pour prédire les événements de 30 jours par rapport aux seules variables de la plaque (CCU < 0,70). L'intégration de la quantité de plaque dans le score HEART a légèrement augmenté la sensibilité au test (62 % à 69 %) pour les événements de 30 jours et a reclassé 11 participants à risque modéré à risque élevé (score de 7 à 10). CONCLUSION: La charge de plaque avec des caractéristiques de composition avancées (fibreuse et calcique) était associée à une augmentation du score HEART. Intégrer l'évaluation de la plaque dans le score HEART a identifié l'athérosclérose subclinique chez les patients à risque modéré.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the predictive ability of the newly introduced Symptoms, history of Vascular disease, Electrocardiography, Age, and Troponin (SVEAT) score with the widely used History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin I (HEART) score in risk stratification for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) development among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain complaints. METHODS: This prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted at an emergency department of a tertiary care hospital between June 2022 and January 2023. We recruited all adult patients aged 24 years and above with a primary complaint of non- traumatic chest pain at the critical care unit of the Emergency Department. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients aged 24 years and above with a primary complaint of chest pain lasting >5 min. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients with STEMI, pregnant individuals, those with traumatic chest pain, and those without 30-day MACE data were excluded. HEART and SVEAT scores were calculated for each participant.The performance of the SVEAT score in identifying the low-risk patient group was compared to that of the HEART score. RESULTS: In the study, out of 809 patients, 589 (72.8%) were categorized as low-risk based on the SVEAT score, and 377 (46.6%) based on the HEART score. Out of these 809 patients, 115 (14.2%) experienced MACE. Within the group classified as low risk by the SVEAT score, 6 (0.7%) patients experienced MACE, while within the group classified as low risk by the HEART score, 8 (1%) patients experienced MACE. The SVEAT score had an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.916 (95% CI 0.890 to 0.942), which was found to be higher than the AUC of the HEART score (0.856, 95% CI 0.822 to 0.890). In our study, the sensitivity of the SVEAT and HEART scores was found to be 94.7% (95% CI 88.9%-98.0%) and 93.0% (95% CI 86.7%-96.9%), respectively. The specificity of both scores was 84.1% (95% CI 81.0%-86.6%) and 53.17% (95% CI 49.3%-56.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: While our study indicated a higher predictive power for MACE development with the SVEAT score compared to the HEART score, further extensive studies are necessary for its reliable implementation in emergency departments for chest pain risk classification.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease is a condition that causes narrowing of the arteries, impairing circulation to the extremities. Globally, it affects millions of people and is more prevalent in older adults and those with diabetes, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. There is an overlap specific to polyvascular patients, and almost 50% of patients with PAD have coronary artery disease. Compelling evidence reveals a noteworthy association between PAD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in individuals experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but limited knowledge exists regarding the influence of PAD on left ventricular systolic function during ACS. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study, we examined 100 participants who presented with ACS (mean age = 61.03 years, 80 [80%] males). The patients were divided into two groups: the ACS-PAD group (32 subjects, 74% of them with STEMI, 10% with NSTEMI, and 16% with NSTEACS) and the ACS-nonPAD group (68 participants). RESULTS: This study highlighted that PAD negatively impacts patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). These patients were likely to experience a decline of approximately 19.3% in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared to the ACS-nonPAD group (p = 0.003) and presented a worse clinical status (the PAD group correlated with Killip class IV, p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that patients diagnosed with NSTEACS and PAD tend to have a higher LVEF of over 55% and a lower HEART score. Patients with PAD tend to have a functionally higher EF but clinically present with more unstable scenarios (pulmonary edema and cardiogenic shock). This is mainly driven by a higher prevalence of HFpEF in the PAD group. Looking closer at the PAD group, they have a higher incidence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, CAD, and stroke, as well as being more active smokers.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Chest pain (CP), a common presentation in the emergency department (ED) setting, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality if emergency clinicians miss the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin) score had been validated for risk-stratification patients who are at high risk for ACS and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). However, the use of cocaine as a risk factor of the HEART score was controversial. We hypothesized that patients with cocaine-positive (COP) would not be associated with higher risk of 30-day MACE than cocaine-negative (CON) patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients who presented to 13 EDs of a University's Medical System between August 7, 2017 to August 19, 2021. Patients who had CP and prospectively calculated HEART scores and urine toxicology tests as part of their clinical evaluation were eligible. Areas Under The Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) were calculated for the performance of HEART score and 30-day MACE for each group. RESULTS: This study analyzed 46,210 patients' charts, 663 (1.4%) were COP patients. Mean age was statistically similar between groups but there were fewer females in the COP group (26.2% vs 53.2%, p < 0.001). Mean (+/- SD) HEART score was 3.7 (1.4) comparing to 3.1 (1.8, p < 0.001) between COP vs CON groups, respectively. Although more COP patients (54%) had moderate HEART scores (4-6) vs. CON group (35.2%, p < 0.001), rates of 30-day MACE were 1.1% for both groups. HEART score's AUROC was 0.72 for COP and 0.78 for CON groups. AUROC for the Risk Factor among COP patients, which includes cocaine, was poor (0.54). CONCLUSION: This study, which utilized prospective calculated HEART scores, demonstrated that overall performance of the HEART score was reasonable. Specifically, our analysis showed that the rate of 30-day MACE was not affected by cocaine use as a risk factor. We would recommend clinicians to consider the HEART score for this patient group.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objectives: This study presents a design framework to enhance the accuracy by which large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT can extract insights from clinical notes. We highlight this framework via prompt refinement for the automated determination of HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin risk algorithm) scores in chest pain evaluation. Methods: We developed a pipeline for LLM prompt testing, employing stochastic repeat testing and quantifying response errors relative to physician assessment. We evaluated the pipeline for automated HEART score determination across a limited set of 24 synthetic clinical notes representing four simulated patients. To assess whether iterative prompt design could improve the LLMs' ability to extract complex clinical concepts and apply rule-based logic to translate them to HEART subscores, we monitored diagnostic performance during prompt iteration. Results: Validation included three iterative rounds of prompt improvement for three HEART subscores with 25 repeat trials totaling 1200 queries each for GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. For both LLM models, from initial to final prompt design, there was a decrease in the rate of responses with erroneous, non-numerical subscore answers. Accuracy of numerical responses for HEART subscores (discrete 0-2 point scale) improved for GPT-4 from the initial to final prompt iteration, decreasing from a mean error of 0.16-0.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.07-0.14) points. Conclusion: We established a framework for iterative prompt design in the clinical space. Although the results indicate potential for integrating LLMs in structured clinical note analysis, translation to real, large-scale clinical data with appropriate data privacy safeguards is needed.

RESUMEN

AIM: For patients who present to the emergency departments (ED) with undifferentiated chest pain, the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) may be underestimated in low-HEART score patients. We aimed to identify characteristics of patients who were classified as low risk by HEART score but subsequently developed MACE at 6 weeks. METHODS: We studied a multiethnic cohort of patients who presented with chest pain arousing suspicion of acute coronary syndrome to EDs in the Netherlands and Singapore. Patients were risk-stratified using HEART score and followed up for MACE at 6 weeks. Risk factors of developing MACE despite low HEART scores (scores 0-3) were identified using logistic and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among 1376 (39.8%) patients with low HEART scores, 63 (4.6%) developed MACE at 6 weeks. More males (53/806, 6.6%) than females (10/570, 2.8%) with low HEART score developed MACE. There was no difference in outcomes between ethnic groups. Among low-HEART score patients with 2 points for history, 21% developed MACE. Among low-HEART score patients with 1 point for troponin, 50% developed MACE, while 100% of those with 2 points for troponin developed MACE. After adjusting for HEART score and potential confounders, male sex was independently associated with increased odds (OR 4.12, 95%CI 2.14-8.78) and hazards (HR 3.93, 95%CI 1.98-7.79) of developing MACE despite low HEART score. CONCLUSION: Male sex, highly suspicious history and elevated troponin were disproportionately associated with MACE. These characteristics should prompt clinicians to consider further investigation before discharge.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Fundamentos: La valoración del riesgo de los pacientes con dolor torácico se basa en los parámetros clínicos. Sin embargo, sin un sistema de puntuación, como las escalas de estratificación del riesgo, las estimaciones son menos precisas y exactas. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar las escalas HEART, GRACE Score y los parámetros clínicos en la predicción de eventos mayores cardiovasculares (mortalidad cardiovascular o infarto agudo de miocardio) durante la hospitalización, en pacientes con dolor torácico atendidos en Urgencias. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo de pacientes que, durante un año, acudieron a Urgencias del Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (Zaragoza) por dolor torácico de tipo isquémico. Las puntuacionesHEART y GRACE se calcularon retrospectivamente a partir de las historias clínicas. Las variables cuantitativas se expresaron como media (±desviación estándar), y las cualitativas como frecuencias y porcentajes. Se llevó a cabo un análisis bivariante mediante la prueba chi cuadrado. El rendimiento de las escalas y parámetros clínicos se comparó mediante el cálculo del área bajo la curva. El resultado primario fue la ocurrencia de un evento mayor cardiovascular (mortalidad cardiovascular o infarto agudo de miocardio) durante el ingreso hospitalario. Resultados: Se registraron 306 pacientes (66,3% eran hombres, n=203), con edad media de 71,45±12,85 años y un 48,7% de antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica. El área bajo la curva, para el evento primario, de las escalasHEART, GRACE y parámetros clínicos fue 0,80 (IC al 95%: 0,73-0,86), 0,79 (IC al 95%: 0,72- 0,85) y 0,74 (IC del 95%: 0,68-0,80), respectivamente. Durante la hospitalización, la incidencia del evento primario fue del 13,4% y ningún paciente de bajo riesgo, en ambas escalas, presentó un evento mayor cardiovascular. Conclusiones: En pacientes con dolor torácico de tipo isquémico atendidos en Urgencias, tanto la escala...(AU)

Background: Risk assessment of patients with chest pain is based on clinical parameters; however, without a scoring system, such as risk stratification scales, estimates are less precise and accurate. The aim of this paper was to compare the HEART, GRACE score and clinical parameters in the prediction of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality or acute myocardial infarction) during hospitalization, in patients with chest pain attended in the emergency department.Methods: A descriptive observational study of patients with ischemic chest pain, who attended to the Miguel Servet University Hospital emergency department (Zaragoza, Spain) during one year was carried out.HEART and GRACE scores were calculated retrospectively from clinical history. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean (±standard deviation), and qualitative variables as frequencies and percentages. A bivariate analysis was carried out using the chi-square test. The performance of the scales and clinical parameters was compared by calculating the area under the curve. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a major cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality or acute myocardial infarction) during hospital admission. Results: 306 patients were registered (66.3% men, n=203), with a mean age of 71.45±12.85 years and a 48.7% history of ischemic heart disease. The areas under the curve for HEART scales, GRACE and clinical parameters were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80), respectively. During hospitalization, the incidence of the primary event was 13.4% and no low-risk patient, in both scales, presented a major cardiovascular event. Conclusions: In patients with ischemic chest pain attended in the emergency department, the GRACE and HEART scale have a greater area under curve than clinical parameters.(AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Risk assessment of patients with chest pain is based on clinical parameters; however, without a scoring system, such as risk stratification scales, estimates are less precise and accurate. The aim of this paper was to compare the HEART, GRACE score and clinical parameters in the prediction of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality or acute myocardial infarction) during hospitalization, in patients with chest pain attended in the emergency department. METHODS: A descriptive observational study of patients with ischemic chest pain, who attended to the Miguel Servet University Hospital emergency department (Zaragoza, Spain) during one year was carried out. HEART and GRACE scores were calculated retrospectively from clinical history. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean (±standard deviation), and qualitative variables as frequencies and percentages. A bivariate analysis was carried out using the chi-square test. The performance of the scales and clinical parameters was compared by calculating the area under the curve. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a major cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality or acute myocardial infarction) during hospital admission. RESULTS: 306 patients were registered (66.3% men, n=203), with a mean age of 71.45±12.85 years and a 48.7% history of ischemic heart disease. The areas under the curve for HEART scales, GRACE and clinical parameters were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.86), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80), respectively. During hospitalization, the incidence of the primary event was 13.4% and no low-risk patient, in both scales, presented a major cardiovascular event. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic chest pain attended in the emergency department, the GRACE and HEART scale have a greater area under curve than clinical parameters.

OBJECTIVE: La valoración del riesgo de los pacientes con dolor torácico se basa en los parámetros clínicos. Sin embargo, sin un sistema de puntuación, como las escalas de estratificación del riesgo, las estimaciones son menos precisas y exactas. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar las escalas HEART, GRACE Score y los parámetros clínicos en la predicción de eventos mayores cardiovasculares (mortalidad cardiovascular o infarto agudo de miocardio) durante la hospitalización, en pacientes con dolor torácico atendidos en Urgencias. METHODS: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo de pacientes que, durante un año, acudieron a Urgencias del Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (Zaragoza) por dolor torácico de tipo isquémico. Las puntuaciones HEART y GRACE se calcularon retrospectivamente a partir de las historias clínicas. Las variables cuantitativas se expresaron como media (±desviación estándar), y las cualitativas como frecuencias y porcentajes. Se llevó a cabo un análisis bivariante mediante la prueba chi cuadrado. El rendimiento de las escalas y parámetros clínicos se comparó mediante el cálculo del área bajo la curva. El resultado primario fue la ocurrencia de un evento mayor cardiovascular (mortalidad cardiovascular o infarto agudo de miocardio) durante el ingreso hospitalario. RESULTS: Se registraron 306 pacientes (66,3% eran hombres, n=203), con edad media de 71,45±12,85 años y un 48,7% de antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica. El área bajo la curva, para el evento primario, de las escalas HEART, GRACE y parámetros clínicos fue 0,80 (IC al 95%: 0,73-0,86), 0,79 (IC al 95%: 0,72- 0,85) y 0,74 (IC del 95%: 0,68-0,80), respectivamente. Durante la hospitalización, la incidencia del evento primario fue del 13,4% y ningún paciente de bajo riesgo, en ambas escalas, presentó un evento mayor cardiovascular. CONCLUSIONS: En pacientes con dolor torácico de tipo isquémico atendidos en Urgencias, tanto la escala GRACE como la escala HEART presentan un área bajo la curva más alta que los parámetros clínicos.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Females have historically lower rates of cardiovascular testing when compared to males. Clinical decision pathways (CDP) that utilize standardized risk-stratification methods may balance this disparity. We sought to determine whether clinical decision pathways could minimize sex-based differences in the non-invasive workup of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Moreover, we evaluated whether the HEART score would minimize sex-based differences in risk-stratification. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort review of adult ED encounters for chest pain where CDP was employed. Primary outcome was any occurrence of non-invasive imaging (coronary CTA, stress imaging), invasive testing, intervention (PCI or CABG), or death. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We stratified HEART scores and primary/secondary outcomes by sex. RESULTS: A total of 1078 charts met criteria for review. Mean age at presentation was 59 years. Females represented 47% of the population. Low, intermediate, and high-risk patients as determined by the HEART score were 17%, 65%, and 18% of the population, respectively, without any significant differences between males and females. Non-invasive testing was similar between males and females when stratified by risk. Males categorized as high risk underwent more coronary angiogram (33% vs. 16%, p = 0.01) and PCI (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.04) than high risk females, but this was not seen in patients categorized as low or intermediate risk. Males experienced more MACE than females (8% vs. 3%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified no sex-based differences in risk-stratification or non-invasive testing when the CDP was used. High risk males, however, underwent more coronary angiogram and PCI than high risk females, and consequently males experienced more overall MACE than females. This disparity may be explained by sex-based differences in the pathophysiology driving each patient's presentation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom myocardial infarction has been ruled out are still at risk of having obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). This rate is higher among patients with intermediate high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) concentrations (5 ng/L to 99th percentile) than low concentrations (<5 ng/L). Therefore, an intermediate concentration has been suggested as a candidate for downstream investigation with computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). We tried to compare the HEART score-guided vs. hsTnI-guided approach for identifying obstructive CAD. METHODS: From a prospective cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected ACS, 433 patients without elevated hsTnI who also underwent CTCA were selected and analyzed. The performances of hsTnI concentration and HEART score were compared using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Overall, 120 (27.7%) patients had obstructive CAD. Patients with intermediate hsTnI concentrations were more likely to have obstructive CAD than those with low hsTnI concentrations (40.0% vs. 18.1%); patients with non-low-risk HEART scores (≥4 points) were also more likely to have obstructive CAD than those with low-risk scores (0 to 3 points) (41.0% vs. 7.6%). The HEART score had higher sensitivity and NPV for detecting obstructive CAD in each classification than hsTnI concentration (sensitivity: 89.2% vs. 63.3% NPV: 92.4% vs. 81.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: After excluding myocardial infarction in patients with suspected ACS, adding the HEART score for selecting candidates for CTCA could improve patient risk stratification more accurately than relying on hsTnI concentration.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chest pain represents a prevalent complaint in emergency departments (EDs), where the precise differentiation between acute coronary syndrome and alternative conditions assumes paramount significance. This pilot study aimed to assess the HEART score's implementation in West Balkan EDs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospective cohort comprising patients presenting with chest pain admitted to EDs in Sarajevo, Zenica, and Belgrade between July and December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were included, with 128 classified as low-risk based on the HEART score and 175 classified as moderate-to-high-risk. The low-risk patients exhibited younger age and a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Laboratory and anamnestic findings revealed higher levels of C-reactive protein, ALT, and creatinine, higher rates of moderately to highly suspicious chest pain history, a greater number of cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated troponin levels in moderate-to-high-risk patients. Comparatively, among patients with a low HEART score, 2.3% experienced MACE, whereas those with a moderate-to high-risk HEART score had a MACE rate of 10.2%. A moderate-to-high-risk HEART score demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.2% (95%CI 90.2-93.4%) and specificity of 46.5% (95%CI 39.9-48.3%) for predicting MACE. CONCLUSION: This pilot study offers preliminary insights into the integration of the HEART score within the emergency departments of the West Balkan region.

RESUMEN

Background: the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is not benign; thus, prompting the need to validate prognostic scoring systems for this population. Aim: to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of GRACE, TIMI, HEART, and ACEF scores in MINOCA patients. Methods: A total of 250 MINOCA patients from January 2017 to September 2021 were included. For each patient, the four scores at admission were retrospectively calculated. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at 1-year follow-up. The ability to predict 1-year all-cause death was also tested. Results: Overall, the tested scores presented a sub-optimal performance in predicting the composite major adverse event in MINOCA patients, showing an AUC ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Among them, the GRACE score appeared to be the best in predicting all-cause death, reaching high specificity with low sensitivity. The best cut-off identified for the GRACE score was 171, higher compared to the cut-off of 140 generally applied to identify high-risk patients with obstructive AMI. When the scores were tested for prediction of 1-year all-cause death, the GRACE and the ACEF score showed very good accuracy (AUC = 0.932 and 0.828, respectively). Conclusion: the prognostic scoring tools, validated in AMI cohorts, could be useful even in MINOCA patients, although their performance appeared sub-optimal, prompting the need for risk assessment tools specific to MINOCA patients.

RESUMEN

Aim: This study aims to enhance prehospital risk assessment for suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients using the HEART-score. By incorporating novel point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin devices, a modified HEART-score was developed and compared with the conventional approach. Patients & methods: Troponin points within the modified HEART-score are based on values below the limit of quantitation (LoQ), between the LoQ and 99th percentile and above the 99th percentile of the used device. A total HEART-score of three or lower is considered low-risk for major adverse cardiac events. Results & conclusion: The number of low-risk patients decreased based on the modified HEART-score. The sensitivity and negative predictive value increased which suggests increasing safety in ruling out patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Study Objective: The use of the HEART score to risk stratify patients for short-term major adverse cardiac events in the emergency department (ED) setting is well established. Although discharge to home for low-risk HEART score patients is widely accepted as safe practice, there are limited outcomes data on moderate-risk HEART score patients discharged to home. We investigated the safety of discharging moderate-risk HEART score patients to home from the ED with established early cardiology follow-up. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain from April 2020 through December 2020. Patients were evaluated in the ED and underwent serial conventional troponin testing and electrocardiogram (ECG). Clinicians calculated a HEART score and employed shared decision-making with moderate-risk patients (score 4-6), offering hospital admission versus discharge home with a formalized process for rapid cardiology follow-up (within 2 business days). We assessed the frequency of acute myocardial infarction or death at 30 days and before cardiology follow-up. Results: During our study period, 2939 patient encounters were screened for chest pain. Of these, 333 of 547 eligible moderate-risk HEART score patients were referred for rapid follow-up. The median time to follow-up appointment was 2.9 business days (interquartile range 1.3, 6.5), and 264 (79%) of patients kept their follow-up appointment. One patient (0.3%) suffered death within 30 days, before cardiology follow-up. There were no myocardial infarctions. Conclusions: These results suggest that moderate-risk HEART score patients may be considered for discharge from the ED with rapid cardiology follow-up. Formalizing processes to facilitate these early evaluations may represent a viable alternative to hospital admission, without diminishing patient outcomes.