Evaluation of HEAR score to rule-out major adverse cardiac events without troponin test in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.
Journal
European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine
ISSN: 1473-5695
Titre abrégé: Eur J Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9442482
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2021
01 Aug 2021
Historique:
entrez:
30
6
2021
pubmed:
1
7
2021
medline:
2
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current guidelines for patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) on electrocardiogram are based on troponin measurement. The HEART score is reportedly a reliable work-up strategy that combines clinical evaluation with troponin value. A clinical rule that could select very low-risk patients without the need for a blood test (HEAR score, being the HEART score without the troponin item) would be of great interest. To prospectively assess the safety of a HEAR score <2 to rule-out non-STEMI without troponin measurement. Secondary objective was to assess the safety of a sequential strategy that combines HEAR score and HEART (defined as two-step HEART strategy). Prospective observational study in six emergency departments. Patients with nontraumatic chest pain and no alternative diagnosis were included and followed up for 45 day. Patients were considered at low-risk if the HEAR score was <2 or, for the two-step HEART strategy, if the HEART score was <4. The primary endpoint was the 45-day rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with a HEAR score <2. A HEAR score based strategy was consider safe if the rate of the primary endpoint was below 1%, with an upper margin of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below 3%. Among 1452 patients included, 1402 were analyzed and 97 (7%) had a MACE during the follow-up period. The HEAR score was <2 in 279 (20%) patients and one presented a MACE [0.4% (95% CI: 0.01-1.98)]. The two-step HEART strategy classified low-risk an additional 476 patients (34%) and one of these 476 patients had a MACE [0.3% (95% CI: 0.03-0.95)]. The two-step HEART strategy would have theoretically avoided 360 troponin measurements (19%). In our prospective multicenter study, a HEAR based work-up strategy was safe, with a very low risk of MACE at 45 day. We also report that a two-step HEART-based strategy may safely allow significant reduction of troponin measurements in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines for patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) on electrocardiogram are based on troponin measurement. The HEART score is reportedly a reliable work-up strategy that combines clinical evaluation with troponin value. A clinical rule that could select very low-risk patients without the need for a blood test (HEAR score, being the HEART score without the troponin item) would be of great interest.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To prospectively assess the safety of a HEAR score <2 to rule-out non-STEMI without troponin measurement. Secondary objective was to assess the safety of a sequential strategy that combines HEAR score and HEART (defined as two-step HEART strategy).
DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
Prospective observational study in six emergency departments. Patients with nontraumatic chest pain and no alternative diagnosis were included and followed up for 45 day. Patients were considered at low-risk if the HEAR score was <2 or, for the two-step HEART strategy, if the HEART score was <4.
OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
The primary endpoint was the 45-day rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with a HEAR score <2. A HEAR score based strategy was consider safe if the rate of the primary endpoint was below 1%, with an upper margin of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below 3%.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 1452 patients included, 1402 were analyzed and 97 (7%) had a MACE during the follow-up period. The HEAR score was <2 in 279 (20%) patients and one presented a MACE [0.4% (95% CI: 0.01-1.98)]. The two-step HEART strategy classified low-risk an additional 476 patients (34%) and one of these 476 patients had a MACE [0.3% (95% CI: 0.03-0.95)]. The two-step HEART strategy would have theoretically avoided 360 troponin measurements (19%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In our prospective multicenter study, a HEAR based work-up strategy was safe, with a very low risk of MACE at 45 day. We also report that a two-step HEART-based strategy may safely allow significant reduction of troponin measurements in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34187993
doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000791
pii: 00063110-202108000-00012
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Troponin
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02813499']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
292-298Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Charpentier S, Beaune S, Joly LM, Khoury A, Duchateau FX, Briot R, et al.; IRU Network. Management of chest pain in the French emergency healthcare system: the prospective observational EPIDOULTHO study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2018; 25:404–410
Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European society of cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016; 37:267–315
Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE Jr, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR Jr, et al.; ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014; 130:e344–e426
López-Barbeito B, Alquézar-Arbé A. Looking for a better chest pain network: are we really going for it or just chasing shadows?. Eur J Emerg Med. 2020; 27:241–242
Lipinski MJ, Baker NC, Escárcega RO, Torguson R, Chen F, Aldous SJ, et al. Comparison of conventional and high-sensitivity troponin in patients with chest pain: a collaborative meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2015; 169:6–16.e6
Zhelev Z, Hyde C, Youngman E, Rogers M, Fleming S, Slade T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of single baseline measurement of Elecsys Troponin T high-sensitive assay for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in emergency department: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015; 350:h15
Hausfater P, Velly L. Diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in the emergency room: the dictatorship of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin and major adverse cardiac events. Eur J Emerg Med. 2020; 27:239–240
Sherwood MW, Kristin Newby L. High-sensitivity troponin assays: evidence, indications, and reasonable use. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014; 3:e000403
Moumneh T, Richard-Jourjon V, Friou E, Prunier F, Soulie-Chavignon C, Choukroun J, et al. Reliability of the CARE rule and the HEART score to rule out an acute coronary syndrome in non-traumatic chest pain patients. Intern Emerg Med. 2018; 13:1111–1119
Milano P, Eiting E, Kim H, Gruber P, Desai S, Vasquez V, Dasu S. 212 troponin testing contributes more to emergency department length of stay than age or ESI level. Ann Emerg Med. 2014; 64:S77
Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Backus BE, Koffijberg H, Veldkamp RF, Ten Haaf ME, et al. Effect of using the HEART score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166:689–697
Sharp AL, Wu YL, Shen E, Redberg R, Lee MS, Ferencik M, et al. The HEART score for suspected acute coronary syndrome in U.S. emergency departments. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 72:1875–1877
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al.; Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction; Authors/Task Force Members Chairpersons; Biomarker Subcommittee; ECG Subcommittee; Imaging Subcommittee; Classification Subcommittee; Intervention Subcommittee; Trials & Registries Subcommittee; Trials & Registries Subcommittee; Trials & Registries Subcommittee; Trials & Registries Subcommittee; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG); Document Reviewers. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60:1581–1598
Pickering JW, Greenslade JH, Cullen L, Flaws D, Parsonage W, George P, et al. Validation of presentation and 3 h high-sensitivity troponin to rule-in and rule-out acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2016; 102:1270–1278
Than M, Herbert M, Flaws D, Cullen L, Hess E, Hollander JE, et al. What is an acceptable risk of major adverse cardiac event in chest pain patients soon after discharge from the emergency department? A clinical survey. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 166:752–754
Kline JA, Johnson CL, Pollack CV Jr, Diercks DB, Hollander JE, Newgard CD, Garvey JL. Pretest probability assessment derived from attribute matching. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005; 5:26
Penaloza A, Soulié C, Moumneh T, Delmez Q, Ghuysen A, El Kouri D, et al. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule in European patients with low implicit clinical probability (PERCEPIC): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Haematol. 2017; 4:e615–e621
Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004; 2:1247–1255
Chaou CH, Chen HH, Chang SH, Tang P, Pan SL, Yen AM, Chiu TF. Predicting length of stay among patients discharged from the emergency department-using an accelerated failure time model. PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0165756
Guttmann A, Schull MJ, Vermeulen MJ, Stukel TA. Association between waiting times and short term mortality and hospital admission after departure from emergency department: population based cohort study from Ontario, Canada. BMJ. 2011; 342:d2983
Stopyra JP, Harper WS, Higgins TJ, Prokesova JV, Winslow JE, Nelson RD, et al. Prehospital modified HEART score predictive of 30-day adverse cardiac events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018; 33:58–62
Backus BE, Tolsma RT, Boogers MJ. The new era of chest pain evaluation in the Netherlands. Eur J Emerg Med. 2020; 27:243–244
Gershon CA, Yagapen AN, Lin A, Yanez D, Sun BC. Inter-rater reliability of the HEART score. Acad Emerg Med. 2019; 26:552–555
Niven WGP, Wilson D, Goodacre S, Robertson A, Green SJ, Harris T. Do all HEART scores beat the same: evaluating the interoperator reliability of the HEART score. Emerg Med J. 2018; 35:732–738
Buttinger N, White D, Shurlock J, Blows L, Dooley M. 150 comparing the length of stay, efficacy and safety of a new 1 hour “rule-out” pathway to standard care for patients presenting to the emergency departments with a suspected acute coronary syndrome at Brighton and Sussex university hospitals NHS trust. Heart. 2019; 105:A125