ABSTRACT
Chest pain is the second leading cause of all emergency department (ED) visits in adults in the United States, with nearly 11 million encounters yearly. While identifying low-risk patients is crucial for early discharge, identifying high-risk patients in ED is vital in timely and appropriate acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management. Traditional methods such as physical examination, cardiac markers, or imaging tests cannot reliably confirm or rule out ACS; they cannot be singularly incorporated to risk stratify patients. Various clinical risk scores have been proposed to address this challenge for risk stratification in patients being evaluated for suspected ACS. The ideal risk score should demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity to accurately differentiate between patients with varying levels of risk, particularly in identifying those at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Simultaneously, an ideal scoring system should also be able to compute information for other non-coronary etiologies of chest pain that require time-sensitive interventions and workups (eg, aortic dissection and pulmonary embolism). In this review, we have assembled major risk scores used for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain in ED. We have abbreviated their salient features to assist readers in their clinical decision-making.
ABSTRACT
A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.