Assessing modified HEART scores with high-sensitivity troponin for low-risk chest pain in the emergency department.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-28 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03845-8
Katherine A Holmes, Samuel A Ralston, Daniel Phillips, Jeffy Jose, Liana Milis, Radhika Cheeti, Timothy Muirheid, Hao Wang
{"title":"Assessing modified HEART scores with high-sensitivity troponin for low-risk chest pain in the emergency department.","authors":"Katherine A Holmes, Samuel A Ralston, Daniel Phillips, Jeffy Jose, Liana Milis, Radhika Cheeti, Timothy Muirheid, Hao Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03845-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The accuracy of using HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) scores with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) to risk stratify emergency department (ED) chest pain patients remains uncertain. We aim to compare the performance accuracy of determining major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among three modified HEART (mHEART) scores with the use of hs-cTn to risk stratify ED chest pain patients. This retrospective single-center observational study included ED patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome who had HEAR scores calculated and at least one hs-cTnI result. Various hs-cTnI parameters, including 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL, i.e., positive, ≥ 53 ng/l for females and ≥ 78 ng/l for males), limit of quantitation (LoQ, i.e., negative: < 20 ng/l), and limit of detection (LoD, < 3 ng/l), were used to calculate a troponin score (T-score). Patients with a T-score of 0 or mHEART score of 0-3 were considered low risk. The study compared the accuracy of different mHEART scores in predicting 30-day and 180-day MACE outcomes. A total of 10,495 patients were included, with 337 (3.21%) and 647 (6.16%) experiencing 30-day and 180-day MACE. The 30-day MACE rates were 0.53%, 1.37%, and 2.00% for patients whose hs-cTnI was beyond the cutoffs of LoD, LoQ, and URL, respectively. However, when low risk was defined as an mHEART score of 0-3, the 30-day MACE rates ranged from 0.33 to 0.62% across different mHEART scores. The mHEART score for risk stratification of low-risk chest pain patients shows acceptable accuracy in predicting MACE outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03845-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The accuracy of using HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) scores with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) to risk stratify emergency department (ED) chest pain patients remains uncertain. We aim to compare the performance accuracy of determining major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among three modified HEART (mHEART) scores with the use of hs-cTn to risk stratify ED chest pain patients. This retrospective single-center observational study included ED patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome who had HEAR scores calculated and at least one hs-cTnI result. Various hs-cTnI parameters, including 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL, i.e., positive, ≥ 53 ng/l for females and ≥ 78 ng/l for males), limit of quantitation (LoQ, i.e., negative: < 20 ng/l), and limit of detection (LoD, < 3 ng/l), were used to calculate a troponin score (T-score). Patients with a T-score of 0 or mHEART score of 0-3 were considered low risk. The study compared the accuracy of different mHEART scores in predicting 30-day and 180-day MACE outcomes. A total of 10,495 patients were included, with 337 (3.21%) and 647 (6.16%) experiencing 30-day and 180-day MACE. The 30-day MACE rates were 0.53%, 1.37%, and 2.00% for patients whose hs-cTnI was beyond the cutoffs of LoD, LoQ, and URL, respectively. However, when low risk was defined as an mHEART score of 0-3, the 30-day MACE rates ranged from 0.33 to 0.62% across different mHEART scores. The mHEART score for risk stratification of low-risk chest pain patients shows acceptable accuracy in predicting MACE outcomes.

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
用高敏感性肌钙蛋白评价急诊低危胸痛的改良HEART评分
使用HEART(病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素和肌钙蛋白)评分和高敏感性心肌肌钙蛋白(hs-cTn)对急诊科(ED)胸痛患者进行风险分层的准确性仍不确定。我们的目的是比较三种改良心脏(mHEART)评分中确定主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的性能准确性,并使用hs-cTn对ED胸痛患者进行风险分层。这项回顾性单中心观察性研究纳入了疑似急性冠状动脉综合征的ED患者,这些患者计算了听力评分并至少有一个hs-cTnI结果。hs-cTnI各项参数,包括第99百分位参考上限(URL,即阳性,女性≥53 ng/l,男性≥78 ng/l)、定量限(LoQ,即阴性);
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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Cytisine for smoking cessation in hospitalised smokers with cardiovascular diseases: an observational study. Severe burn injuries and the impact of mental health: insights from 7 years at Switzerland's leading burn center. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and internal-medicine clinicians: observational cohort study. Linezolid-induced neuropathy in Nocardia pneumonia. Detection and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting or non-cardiac surgery: a survey by the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration.
×
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