Symptoms and coronary risk factors predictive of adverse cardiac events in chest pain patients in an Asian emergency department: the need for a local prediction score.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical assessment is pivotal in diagnosing acute coronary syndrome. Our study aimed to identify clinical characteristics predictive of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in an Asian population and to derive a risk score for MACE. METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain and non-diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiograms were recruited. Clinical history was recorded in a predesigned template. Random glucose and direct low-density lipoprotein measurements were taken, in addition to serial troponin. We derived the age, coronary risk factors (CRF), sex and symptoms (ACSS) risk score based on multivariate analysis results, considering age, CRF, sex and symptoms and classifying patients into very low, low, moderate and high risk for MACE. Comparison was made with the ED Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS) and the history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, troponin (HEART) score. We also modified the HEART score with the CRF that we had identified. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year MACE. RESULTS: There were a total of 1689 patients, with 172 (10.2%) and 200 (11.8%) having 30-day and 1-year MACE, respectively. Symptoms predictive of MACE included central chest pain, radiation to the jaw/neck, associated diaphoresis, and symptoms aggravated by exertion and relieved by glyceryl trinitrate. The ACSS score had an area under the curve of 0.769 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.735-0.803) and 0.760 (95% CI: 0.727-0.793) for 30-day and 1-year MACE, respectively, outperforming EDACS. Those in the very-low-risk and low-risk groups had <1% risk of 30-day MACE. CONCLUSION: The ACSS risk score shows potential for use in the local ED or primary care setting, potentially reducing unnecessary cardiac investigations and admission.

Coronary CT Angiography-based Morphologic Index for Predicting Hemodynamically Significant Coronary Stenosis.

Purpose To develop a new coronary CT angiography (CCTA)-based index, α×LL/MLD4, that considers lesion entrance angle (α) in addition to lesion length (LL) and minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and to evaluate its efficacy in predicting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR). Materials and Methods This prospective study enrolled participants (September 2016-March 2020) from two centers who underwent CCTA followed by ICA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03054324). CCTA images were processed semiautomatically to measure LL, MLD, and α for calculating α×LL/MLD4. Diagnostic performance and accuracy of α×LL/MLD4 and LL/MLD4 in detecting hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis were compared against the reference standard (invasive FFR ≤ 0.80). Results In total, 133 participants (mean age, 63 years ± 9 [SD]; 99 [74%] men) with 210 stenosed coronary arteries were analyzed. Median α×LL/MLD4 was 54.0 degree/mm3 (IQR, 25.3-128.7) in participants with invasive FFR of 0.80 or less and 6.7 degree/mm3 (IQR, 3.3-12.8) in participants with invasive FFR of more than 0.80 (P < .001). The per-vessel accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for discriminating ischemic lesions were 86.2%, 83.1%, 88.4%, 84.1%, and 87.7% for α×LL/MLD4 and 80.5%, 66.3%, 90.9%, 84.3%, and 78.6% for LL/MLD4, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discriminating hemodynamically significant stenosis was 0.93 for α×LL/MLD4, which was significantly greater than the values of 0.84 for LL/MLD4 and 0.63 for diameter stenosis (both P < .001). Conclusion The new morphologic index, α×LL/MLD4, incorporating lesion entrance angle achieved higher diagnostic performance in detecting hemodynamically significant lesions compared with diameter stenosis and LL/MLD4. Keywords: CT Angiography, Cardiac, Coronary Arteries, Ischemia, Infarction, Technology Assessment Clinical trial registration no. NCT03054324 Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023 See also the commentary by Fairbairn and Nørgaard in this issue.