HEART vs EDACS Scores on Predicting Major Events Among Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome at the Cardiac Emergency Department.

IF 1 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Nursing Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000526
Shimaa Mohamed Hasballa, Mohamed Aboel-Kassem F Abdelmegid, Mogedda Mohamed Mehany
{"title":"HEART vs EDACS Scores on Predicting Major Events Among Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome at the Cardiac Emergency Department.","authors":"Shimaa Mohamed Hasballa, Mohamed Aboel-Kassem F Abdelmegid, Mogedda Mohamed Mehany","doi":"10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coronary risk scores, such as History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) scores, help nurses identify suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who have a risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the accuracy of HEART and EDACS scores in predicting major events among patients suspected of ACS in the cardiac emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>A prospective correlational observational study design was performed on cardiac ED patients who presented with suspected ACS.</p><p><strong>Tools: </strong>Three tools were utilized to collect data pertinent to the study: Tool I comprises patients' assessment (personal characteristics, risk factors for ACS, and chest pain assessment sheet); Tool II is the risk assessment tool that includes HEART and EDACS scores; and Tool III is MACE incidence among studied patients within 30 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HEART score was significantly (P < .01) higher among patients for whom MACE was present than absent. However, EDACS score showed no significant difference (P > .05) among patients whose MACE was present or absent. HEART risk score >6 correctly predicted MACE cases with sensitivity and specificity of 77.46% and 48.28%, respectively. However, EDACS score >18 correctly predicted MACE cases with sensitivity and specificity of 42.25% and 75.86%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study concludes that HEART score has better sensitivity than EDACS in predicting MACE among suspected ACS patients at the cardiac ED. The HEART score provides the nurses with a quicker and more reliable predictor of MACE shortly after the arrival of the suspected ACS patients at the cardiac ED than the EDACS score. The study recommended the implementation of a HEART score in the cardiac ED for predicting MACE in suspected ACS patients. Follow up closely for high-risk patients to MACE. An educational program should be made for nurses about the implementation of the heart score in the cardiac ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":10789,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Nursing Quarterly","volume":"47 4","pages":"296-310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Nursing Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Coronary risk scores, such as History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) scores, help nurses identify suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who have a risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days.

Aim: To compare the accuracy of HEART and EDACS scores in predicting major events among patients suspected of ACS in the cardiac emergency department (ED).

Design and methods: A prospective correlational observational study design was performed on cardiac ED patients who presented with suspected ACS.

Tools: Three tools were utilized to collect data pertinent to the study: Tool I comprises patients' assessment (personal characteristics, risk factors for ACS, and chest pain assessment sheet); Tool II is the risk assessment tool that includes HEART and EDACS scores; and Tool III is MACE incidence among studied patients within 30 days.

Results: HEART score was significantly (P < .01) higher among patients for whom MACE was present than absent. However, EDACS score showed no significant difference (P > .05) among patients whose MACE was present or absent. HEART risk score >6 correctly predicted MACE cases with sensitivity and specificity of 77.46% and 48.28%, respectively. However, EDACS score >18 correctly predicted MACE cases with sensitivity and specificity of 42.25% and 75.86%, respectively.

Conclusion: This study concludes that HEART score has better sensitivity than EDACS in predicting MACE among suspected ACS patients at the cardiac ED. The HEART score provides the nurses with a quicker and more reliable predictor of MACE shortly after the arrival of the suspected ACS patients at the cardiac ED than the EDACS score. The study recommended the implementation of a HEART score in the cardiac ED for predicting MACE in suspected ACS patients. Follow up closely for high-risk patients to MACE. An educational program should be made for nurses about the implementation of the heart score in the cardiac ED.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
HEART 与 EDACS 评分对心脏科急诊室疑似急性冠状动脉综合征患者重大事件的预测作用。
冠状动脉风险评分,如病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素和肌钙蛋白(HEART)和急诊科胸痛评估评分(EDACS),可帮助护士识别30天内有发生重大心脏不良事件(MACE)风险的疑似急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者。目的:比较HEART和EDACS评分在预测心脏急诊科(ED)疑似ACS患者发生重大事件方面的准确性:采用前瞻性相关观察研究设计,研究对象为心脏急诊科疑似 ACS 患者:工具:使用三种工具收集与研究相关的数据:工具 I 包括患者评估(个人特征、ACS 风险因素和胸痛评估表);工具 II 是风险评估工具,包括 HEART 和 EDACS 评分;工具 III 是研究对象 30 天内 MACE 发生率:在出现或未出现 MACE 的患者中,HEART 评分有明显差异(P .05)。HEART 风险评分 >6 能正确预测 MACE 病例,灵敏度和特异度分别为 77.46% 和 48.28%。然而,EDACS评分大于18分可正确预测MACE病例,其敏感性和特异性分别为42.25%和75.86%:本研究得出结论,在预测心脏急诊室疑似 ACS 患者的 MACE 方面,HEART 评分的灵敏度高于 EDACS。与 EDACS 评分相比,HEART 评分能更快速、更可靠地预测疑似 ACS 患者到达心脏急诊室后不久的 MACE。研究建议在心脏急诊室采用 HEART 评分预测疑似 ACS 患者的 MACE。对 MACE 高危患者进行密切随访。应为护士制定有关在心脏急诊室实施心脏评分的教育计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Nursing Quarterly
Critical Care Nursing Quarterly CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Critical Care Nursing Quarterly (CCNQ) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides current practice-oriented information for the continuing education and improved clinical practice of critical care professionals, including nurses, physicians, and allied health care professionals.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Nurses' Perceptions of Handover Practices: A Comparative Study in Different Medical Settings. Care Bundle Approach for Oral Health Maintenance and Reduction of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Cryoanalgesia for Reducing Unconscious Patients' Pain During Arterial Puncture. Developing and Validating a Bundle for Safe Intra-Hospital Transporting of the Critically Ill Patients: Mixed Qualitative Design With Delphi Approach. Effect of the "aSSKINg" Model in Reducing Pressure Ulcer Risk: A Comparative Study Using the Braden Risk Assessment Score.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1