scholarly journals Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e027081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf E Harskamp ◽  
Simone C Laeven ◽  
Jelle CL Himmelreich ◽  
Wim A M Lucassen ◽  
Henk C P M van Weert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Disease ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Judgement ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Rule Out

ObjectiveTo identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice.DesignSystematic review of diagnostic studies.Data sourcesMedline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018.Study selectionStudies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing.Review methodsReviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate.ResultsEight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%–91%), specificity (61%–81%) and positive (23%–35%) and negative (97%–98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%–34%, NPV: 95%–99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%–43%, NPV: 96%–98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size.ConclusionsIn general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.

Reliability of the CARE rule and the HEART score to rule out an acute coronary syndrome in non-traumatic chest pain patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1111-1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Moumneh ◽  
Vanessa Richard-Jourjon ◽  
Emilie Friou ◽  
Fabrice Prunier ◽  
Caroline Soulie-Chavignon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Pain Patients ◽  
Rule Out

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the HEART Pathway and EDACS-ADP when combined with a 0-hour/1-hour hs-cTnT protocol for assessment of acute chest pain patients

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-210833
Author(s):  
Tsvetelina Nilsson ◽  
Erik Johannesson ◽  
Jakob Lundager Forberg ◽  
Arash Mokhtari ◽  
Ulf Ekelund
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Troponin T ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Index Visit ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Pain Patients ◽  
Rule Out

Background/aimIn ED chest pain patients, a 0-hour/1-hour protocol based on high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) tests combined with clinical risk stratification in diagnosing acute coronary syndrome is recommended. Two of the most promising risk stratification tools are the History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors and Troponin (HEART) and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain (EDAC) scores. Few studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the 0-hour/1-hour hs-cTnT protocol when combined with HEART score, and none with EDACS. In ED chest pain patients, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a 0-hour/1-hour hs-cTnT protocol combined the HEART Pathway, or the EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP).MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational study enrolling 1167 ED chest pain patients who visited the ED at Skåne University Hospital in Lund, Sweden in the period between February 2013 and April 2014. HEART and EDAC scores were assessed together with hs-cTnT at 0 and 1 hour and compared with HEART score alone. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios were evaluated. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including unstable angina within 30 days. The secondary outcome was index visit acute myocardial infarction (AMI).ResultsA total of 939 patients were included in the final analysis. When combined with 0-hour/1-hour hs-cTnT testing, the HEART Pathway and EDACS-ADP identified 49.8% and 49.6% of the patients for rule-out, with NPVs for 30-day MACE of 99.8% and 99.1%, compared with the HEART score alone that identified 53.4% of the patients for rule-out with NPV of 99.2%. The NPV for index visit AMI were 100%, 99.8% and 99.2%, respectively.ConclusionThe combination of the HEART Pathway or the EDACS-ADP with a 0-hour/1-hour hs-cTnT protocol allows safe and early rule-out in a large proportion of ED chest pain patients.

scholarly journals Effect of using HEART score in patients with chest pain at the emergency department of University Clinical Centre of the Republic of Srpska

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Bojan Stanetić ◽  
Nenad Jaćimović ◽  
Šemsudin Porčić
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Clinical Centre ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Republic

Introduction. Recent data show that 1/5 of patients with chest pain in the emergency room (ER) have an acute coronary syndrome that requires admission and treatment. Current guidelines have endorsed the HEART score for admission, observation or discharge in individual patients. We aimed to assess performance of the HEART score at the University Clinical Centre of the Republic of Srpska. Methods. Between March 1 and March 31, 2019, all patients with chest pain who presented at ER were evaluated. The HEART score for each patient was calculated, and patients were stratified based on the HEART score recommendation, i.e. low-, intermediate-and high-risk. Patients were followed 6 weeks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results. Out of a total of 144 included patients, 23 had low-risk (0-3) HEART scores, while 73 and 48 patients had intermediate-risk (4-6) and high-risk (7-10) HEART scores, respectively. The discordance among intuitive judgments by clinicians and the HEART score advice became typically obtrusive in patients with excessive (7-10) HEART score rankings: 25 out of 48 (52.1%) patients had been discharged, while the remaining 22 patients had been admitted and 1 person was observed. In population with HEART score rankings 4-6, MACE became recognized in 1/73 (1.4%) while in patients with excessive HEART score rankings (values 7-10), MACE befell in 5/48 (10.4%). Only one patient who was discharged experienced MACE. The ROC analysis of the HEART score revealed a value of 0.78, suggesting a good performance in discriminating between low-and high-risk patients. Conclusion. Discordance between clinical decision and HEART score recommendation was not associated with severe clinical consequences.

scholarly journals Derivation of a clinical decision rule for chest radiography in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome

CJEM ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 128-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik P. Hess ◽  
Jeffrey J. Perry ◽  
Pam Ladouceur ◽  
George A. Wells ◽  
Ian G. Stiell
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Congestive Heart Failure ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Chest Radiography ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Chest Radiographs ◽  
Clinical Decision Rule ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
History Of

ABSTRACTObjective:We derived a clinical decision rule to determine which emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require chest radiography.Methods:We prospectively enrolled patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS over a 6-month period. Emergency physicians completed standardized clinical assessments and ordered chest radiographs as appropriate. Two blinded investigators independently classified chest radiographs as “normal,” “abnormal not requiring intervention” and “abnormal requiring intervention,” based on review of the radiology report and the medical record. The primary outcome was abnormality of chest radiographs requiring acute intervention. Analyses included interrater reliability assessment (with κ statistics), univariate analyses and recursive partitioning.Results:We enrolled 529 patients during the study period between Jul. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. Patients had a mean age of 59.9 years, 60.3% were male, 4.0% had a history of congestive heart failure and 21.9% had a history of acute myocardial infarction. Only 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1%–3.8%) of patients had radiographic abnormality of the chest requiring acute intervention. The κ statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66–0.95). We derived the following rule: patients can forgo chest radiography if they have no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking and no abnormalities on lung auscultation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% CI 32.0%–10.4%) and 36.1% specific (95% CI 32.0%–40.4%).Conclusion:This rule has potential to reduce health care costs and enhance ED patient flow. It requires validation in an independent patient population before introduction into clinical practice.

Strangulated Morgagni hernia masquerading as an acute coronary syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. e244045
Author(s):  
May Honey Ohn ◽  
Jun Rong Ng ◽  
Theviga Neela Mehan ◽  
Ng Pey Luen
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Emergency Laparotomy ◽  
Morgagni Hernia ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rule Out

Morgagni hernia is the rarest type of congenital diaphragmatic hernia, which can present late in adulthood. Here, we report a case of Morgagni hernia in an elderly woman who presented as an acute coronary syndrome with raised troponin level. X-ray of the chest (CXR) showed air–fluid level in the right lower hemithorax with loss of right diaphragmatic outline and subsequently confirmed strangulated Morgagni hernia with CT. She was treated with emergency laparotomy to reduce the hernia content and surgical repair with mesh done. In conclusion, Troponin can be falsely positive in Morgagni hernia patients, possibly due to strain on the heart by herniated bowel contents. Basic imaging such as a (CXR) is useful in the case of chest pain to rule out the non-cardiac causes. Although ‘time is the myocardium’ in the setting of all cases of chest pain with raised troponin, CXR should be done before treatment that poses bleeding risk and unnecessary delay in laparotomy.

PP23 Accuracy of emergency medical services (EMS) telephone triage in identifying acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for chest pain patients. A systematic review abstract

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. A10.2-A10
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alotaibi ◽  
Abdulrhman Alghamdi ◽  
Charles Reynard ◽  
Richard Body
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Telephone Triage ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Pain Patients

IntroductionChest pain is one of the most common reasons for ambulance callouts and presentation to Emergency Departments (EDs). Differentiating patients with serious conditions (e.g. acute coronary syndrome [ACS]) from the majority, who have self-limiting, non-cardiac conditions is extremely challenging. This causes over-triage and over-use of healthcare resources. We aimed to systematically review existing evidence on the accuracy of emergency telephone triage to detect ACS or life-threatening conditions associated with chest pain.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two independent investigators searched the Embase, Medline, and Cinahl databases for relevant papers. We included retrospective and prospective cohort studies written in English and investigating EMS telephone triage for chest pain patients linked with final diagnosis of ACS. Studies were summarised in a narrative format as the data were not suitable for meta-analysis.ResultIn total, 553 studies were identified from the literature search and cross-referencing. After excluding 550 studies, three were eligible for inclusion. Among those 3 studies, there are different prediction models developed by authors with variation in variables to detect ACS. The result showed that dispatch triage tools have good sensitivity to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions although they are used to triage sign and symptoms rather than diagnosing the patients. On the other hand, prediction models were built to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions and therefore it showed better sensitivity and NPV.ConclusionEMS dispatch systems accuracy for ACS and life-threatening conditions associated with chest pain is good. Since the dispatch tools were built to triage ambulance response priority based on sign and symptoms, this led to over triage among non-life-threatening chest pain patients. Over triage were slightly reduced by deriving prediction models and showed better sensitivity.

Risk stratifying chest pain patients in the emergency department using HEART, GRACE and TIMI scores, with a single contemporary troponin result, to predict major adverse cardiac events

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 420-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D W Reaney ◽  
Hamish I Elliott ◽  
Awsan Noman ◽  
Jamie G Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Diagnostic Characteristics ◽  
Coronary Events

BackgroundThe majority of patients presenting to the ED with cardiac sounding chest pain have a non-diagnostic ECG and the problem of differentiating those suffering an acute coronary syndrome from those without is familiar to all ED clinical staff. To stratify risk in these patients, specific scores have been developed. Recent work has focused on incorporating newer high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays; however, issues regarding performance and availability of these assays remain.AimProspectively compare HEART, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores, using a single contemporary cTn at admission, to predict a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 30 days.MethodProspective observational cohort study performed in a UK tertiary hospital in patients with suspected cardiac chest pain and no significant ST elevation on initial ECG. Data collection took place 2 December 2014 to 8 February 2016. The treating clinician recorded risk score data real time and a single contemporary cTn taken at presentation was used in score calculation. The primary endpoint was 30-day MACE. C-statistic was determined for each score and diagnostic characteristics of high-risk and low-risk cut-offs were calculated.Results189/1000 patients in the study developed a 30-day MACE. The c-statistic of HEART for 30-day MACE (0.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.90)) was higher than TIMI (0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81)) and GRACE (0.74 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.78)).HEART score ≤3 identified low-risk patients with sensitivity 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 99.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.9%) exceeding TIMI 0 (sensitivity 97.4% (95% CI 93.9% to 99.1%) and NPV 97.8% (95% CI 94.8% to 99.1%)) and GRACE score 0–55 (sensitivity 95.2% (95% CI 91.1% to 97.8%) and NPV 95.8% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.7%)).ConclusionHEART outperformed both TIMI and GRACE in overall discriminative capacity for 30-day MACE. Using a single contemporary cTn at presentation, a HEART score of ≤3 demonstrated sensitivity and NPV of ≥99.5% for 30-day MACE. These results reach the threshold for a safe discharge strategy but should be interpreted thoughtfully in light of other work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document