HEART-score can be simplified without loss of discriminatory power in patients with chest pain - Introducing the HET-score.

BACKGROUND: The History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors and Troponin, (HEART) score is useful for early risk stratification in chest pain patients. The aim was to validate previous findings that a simplified score using history, ECG and troponin (HET-score) has similar ability to stratify risk. METHODS: Patients presenting with chest pain with duration of ≥10 min and an onset of last episode ≤12 h but without ST-segment elevation on ECG at 6 emergency departments were eligible for inclusion. The HEART-score and the simplified HET-score were calculated. The endpoint was a composite of myocardial infarction (MI) as index diagnosis, readmission due to new MI or death within 30 days. RESULTS: HEART-score identified 32% as low risk (0-2p), 47% as intermediate risk (3-5p), and 20% as high risk (6-10p) patients. The endpoint occurred in 0.5%, 7.3% and 35.7%, respectively. HET-score identified 39%, 42% and 19% as low- (0p), intermediate- (1-2p) and high-risk (3-6p) patients, with the endpoint occurring in 0.6%, 6.2% and 43.2%, respectively. When all variables included in the HEART-score were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis, only History (OR, CI [95%]): 2.97(2.16-4.09), ECG (1.61[1.14-2.28]) and troponin level (5.21[3.91-6.95]) were significantly associated with cardiovascular events. When HEART- and HET-score were compared in a ROC-analysis, HET-score had a significantly larger AUC (0.887 vs 0.853, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HEART-score, HET-score is simpler and appears to have similar ability to discriminate between chest pain patients with and without cardiovascular event.

A Rule-Out Strategy Based on High-Sensitivity Troponin and HEART Score Reduces Hospital Admissions.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate whether a combination of a 1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin algorithm and History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score reduces admission rate (primary outcome) and affects time to discharge, health care-related costs, and 30-day outcome (secondary outcomes) in patients with symptoms suggestive of an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: This prospective observational multicenter study was conducted before (2013 to 2014) and after (2015 to 2016) implementation of a strategy including level of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T or I at 0 and 1 hour, combined with the HEART score. Patients with a nonelevated baseline high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level, a 1-hour change in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T level less than 3 ng/L, or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I level less than 6 ng/L and a HEART score less than or equal to 3 were considered to be ruled out of having acute coronary syndrome. A logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1,233 patients were included at 6 centers. There were no differences in regard to median age (64 versus 63 years) and proportion of men (57% versus 54%) between the periods. After introduction of the new strategy, the admission rate decreased from 59% to 33% (risk ratio 0.55 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.48 to 0.63]; odds ratio 0.33 [95% CI 0.26 to 0.42]; adjusted odds ratio 0.33 [95% CI 0.25 to 0.42]). The median hospital stay was reduced from 23.2 to 4.7 hours (95% CI of difference -20.4 to -11.4); median health care-related costs, from $1,748 to $1,079 (95% CI of difference -$953 to -$391). The number of clinical events was very low. CONCLUSION: In this before-after study, clinical implementation of a 1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin algorithm combined with the HEART score was associated with a reduction in admission rate and health care burden, with very low rates of adverse clinical events.

[More coronary computed tomography angiographies and less exercise electrocardiograms in patients under investigation for coronary artery disease?] / DT kranskärl bör användas oftare vid misstänkt kranskärlssjukdom.

Chronic coronary syndrome is a clinical diagnosis based on medical history and risk factors. To confirm diagnosis, an anatomical or functional assessment is recommended. Selection of diagnostic test is guided by clinical likelihood, patient characteristics, local expertise and availability. If the likelihood is low to intermediate, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is recommended; if intermediate to high, a functional non-invasive test, such as stress echocardiography, is recommended. As compared with other non-invasive diagnostic tests, exercise electrocardiogram has the lowest sensitivity and is only recommended when other imaging diagnostic tests are unavailable. The availability of CCTA is unequal and inadequate in most parts of Sweden. Efforts to increase the availability are called for.