Katherine A Holmes, Samuel A Ralston, Daniel Phillips, Jeffy Jose, Liana Milis, Radhika Cheeti, Timothy Muirheid, Hao Wang
{"title":"用高敏感性肌钙蛋白评价急诊低危胸痛的改良HEART评分","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":"{\"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}","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}
Assessing modified HEART scores with high-sensitivity troponin for low-risk chest pain in the emergency department.
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.
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.