This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Chest pain scores allow emergency physicians to identify low-risk patients for whom discharge can be safely expedited. While their utility have been extensively studied and validated in Western cohorts, data in patients of Asian heritage is lacking. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of HEART, EDACS and GRACE in risk-stratifying which emergency patients with chest pain or angina-equivalent symptoms are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 30 days (composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization). This single-centre prospective cohort-study enrolling 1200 patients was conducted by a large urban tertiary centre in Singapore. The chest pain scores were reported prior to disposition by research assistants blinded to the physician’s clinical assessment. Outcome adjudication was performed by an independent blinded cardiologist and emergency physician, while a second cardiologist adjudicated in the case of discrepancies. \
Results Of 1200 patients enrolled, 5 withdrew consent and were excluded from analyses. 135 patients (11.3%) suffered MACE within 30 days. HEART, which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 52.8% of patients with 88.1% sensitivity, and EDACS, which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 57.5% of patients with 83.7% sensitivity, proved comparable to clinical judgment which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 73.0% of patients with 85.5% sensitivity. GRACE was weaker – ruling-out acute coronary syndrome in 79.2% of patients but with a dismal sensitivity of 45.0%. The correlation-statistic for HEART (79.4%) was also superior to EDACS (69.9%) and GRACE (69.2%).
Conclusions HEART more accurately identified low-risk chest pain patients in an Asian emergency department who were suitable for expedited discharge and demonstrated comparable performance characteristics to clinical judgment. This has major implications on the use of chest pain scores to safely expedite disposition decisions for low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department.
Keywords
Chest pain scores , MACE, Outcome, emergency department
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 04 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original Research
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 04 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Chest pain scores allow emergency physicians to identify low-risk patients for whom discharge can be safely expedited. While their utility have been extensively studied and validated in Western cohorts, data in patients of Asian heritage is lacking. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of HEART, EDACS and GRACE in risk-stratifying which emergency patients with chest pain or angina-equivalent symptoms are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 30 days (composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization). This single-centre prospective cohort-study enrolling 1200 patients was conducted by a large urban tertiary centre in Singapore. The chest pain scores were reported prior to disposition by research assistants blinded to the physician’s clinical assessment. Outcome adjudication was performed by an independent blinded cardiologist and emergency physician, while a second cardiologist adjudicated in the case of discrepancies. \
Results Of 1200 patients enrolled, 5 withdrew consent and were excluded from analyses. 135 patients (11.3%) suffered MACE within 30 days. HEART, which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 52.8% of patients with 88.1% sensitivity, and EDACS, which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 57.5% of patients with 83.7% sensitivity, proved comparable to clinical judgment which ruled-out acute coronary syndrome in 73.0% of patients with 85.5% sensitivity. GRACE was weaker – ruling-out acute coronary syndrome in 79.2% of patients but with a dismal sensitivity of 45.0%. The correlation-statistic for HEART (79.4%) was also superior to EDACS (69.9%) and GRACE (69.2%).
Conclusions HEART more accurately identified low-risk chest pain patients in an Asian emergency department who were suitable for expedited discharge and demonstrated comparable performance characteristics to clinical judgment. This has major implications on the use of chest pain scores to safely expedite disposition decisions for low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...