Consensus paper on the assessment of adult patients with traumatic brain injury with Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15 at the emergency department: A multidisciplinary overview.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common reason for presenting to emergency departments (EDs). The assessment of these patients is frequently hampered by various confounders, and diagnostics is still often based on nonspecific clinical signs. Throughout Europe, there is wide variation in clinical practices, including the follow-up of those discharged from the ED. The objective is to present a practical recommendation for the assessment of adult patients with an acute TBI, focusing on milder cases not requiring in-hospital care. The aim is to advise on and harmonize practices for European settings. A multiprofessional expert panel, giving consensus recommendations based on recent scientific literature and clinical practices, is employed. The focus is on patients with a preserved consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale 13-15) not requiring in-hospital care after ED assessment. The main results of this paper contain practical, clinically usable recommendations for acute clinical assessment, decision-making on acute head computerized tomography (CT), use of biomarkers, discharge options, and needs for follow-up, as well as a discussion of the main features and risk factors for prolonged recovery. In conclusion, this consensus paper provides a practical stepwise approach for the clinical assessment of patients with an acute TBI at the ED. Recommendations are given for the performance of acute head CT, use of brain biomarkers and disposition after ED care including careful patient information and organization of follow-up for those discharged.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians.

Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.

Management of patients suspected for non-ST elevation-acute coronary syndrome in the prehospital phase.

The management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, especially in prehospital settings, is challenging. This Special Report focuses on studies in emergency medical services concerning chest pain patients' triage and risk stratification. In addition, it emphasizes advancements in point-of-care cardiac troponin testing. These developments are compared with in-hospital guidelines, proposing an initial framework for a new acute care pathway. This pathway integrates a risk stratification tool with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing, aiming to deliver optimal care and collaboration within the acute care chain. It has the potential to contribute to a significant reduction in hospital referrals, reduce observation time and overcrowding at emergency departments and hospital admissions.

Improved prehospital triage for acute cardiac care: results from HART-c, a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac symptoms are one of the most prevalent reasons for emergency department visits. However, over 80% of patients with such symptoms are sent home after acute cardiovascular disease has been ruled out. OBJECTIVE: The Hollands-Midden Acute Regional Triage-cardiology (HART-c) study aimed to investigate whether a novel prehospital triage method, combining prehospital and hospital data with expert consultation, could increase the number of patients who could safely stay at home after emergency medical service (EMS) consultation. METHODS: The triage method combined prehospital EMS data, such as electrocardiographic and vital parameters in real time, and data from regional hospitals (including previous medical records and admission capacity) with expert consultation. During the 6­month intervention and control periods 1536 and 1376 patients, respectively, were consulted by the EMS. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of patients who could stay at home after EMS consultation. RESULTS: The novel triage method led to a significant increase in patients who could safely stay at home, 11.8% in the intervention group versus 5.9% in the control group: odds ratio 2.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-3.05). Of 181 patients staying at home, only 1 (< 1%) was later diagnosed with ACS; no patients died. Furthermore the number of interhospital transfers decreased: relative risk 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.97). CONCLUSION: The HART­c triage method led to a significant decrease in interhospital transfers and an increase in patients with cardiac symptoms who could safely stay at home. The presented method thereby reduced overcrowding and, if implemented throughout the country and for other medical specialties, could potentially reduce the number of cardiac and non-cardiac hospital visits even further.

Prehospital triage of patients with acute cardiac complaints: study protocol of HART-c, a multicentre prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a major healthcare problem associated with worse patient outcomes and increased costs. Attempts to reduce ED overcrowding of patients with cardiac complaints have so far focused on in-hospital triage and rapid risk stratification of patients with chest pain at the ED. The Hollands-Midden Acute Regional Triage-Cardiology (HART-c) study aimed to assess the amount of patients left at home in usual ambulance care as compared with the new prehospital triage method. This method combines paramedic assessment and expert cardiologist consultation using live monitoring, hospital data and real-time admission capacity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients visited by the emergency medical services (EMS) for cardiac complaints are included. EMS consultation consists of medical history, physical examination and vital signs, and ECG measurements. All data are transferred to a newly developed platform for the triage cardiologist. Prehospital data, in-hospital medical records and real-time admission capacity are evaluated. Then a shared decision is made whether admission is necessary and, if so, which hospital is most appropriate. To evaluate safety, all patients left at home and their general practitioners (GPs) are contacted for 30-day adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the LUMC's Medical Ethics Committee. Patients are asked for consent for contacting their GPs. The main results of this trial will be disseminated in one paper. DISCUSSION: The HART-c study evaluates the efficacy and feasibility of a prehospital triage method that combines prehospital patient assessment and direct consultation of a cardiologist who has access to live-monitored data, hospital data and real-time hospital admission capacity. We expect this triage method to substantially reduce unnecessary ED visits.

The interobserver agreement of the HEART-score, a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Chest pain is one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED). The HEART-score is used to assess the 30-day risk of developing a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). The HEART-score enables clinicians to classify patients in low, intermediate, or high-risk groups though little is known as to whether this can be done reliably and reproducibly in a prehospital setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the interobserver agreement of the HEART-score between ambulance nurses and ED physicians. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years, with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin presented by ambulance to the EDs of four regional hospitals, were prospectively enrolled between October 2018 and April 2019. OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was interobserver agreement of the HEART-scores calculated by ambulance nurses compared to those calculated by ED physicians. Agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa (K) both for overall HEART-score and dichotomized HEART categories. A secondary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE at 30 days after inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were enrolled of which 166 patients were male (54%). The mean age was 64.8 years. In 23% (95% confidence interval, 18-27), patients were scored in the low-risk category by both ambulance nurses and ED physicians. The K for the overall HEART-score compared between ambulance nurses and ED physicians was 0.514. The K for the low-risk category versus intermediate and high-risk category was 0.591. Both are defined as 'moderate'. MACE within 30 days occurred in 64 patients (21%). In the low-risk group as defined by the ambulance nurses, there was a 7% risk of MACE compared to an average 5% MACE risk in the ED physician group. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate interobserver agreement of the HEART-score does not currently support the use of the HEART-score by ambulance nurses in a prehospital setting. Training for prehospital nurses is vital to ensure that they are able to calculate the HEART-score accurately.

The Fast and the Furious: Low-Risk Chest Pain and the Rapid Rule-Out Protocol.

Accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADP) have been designed to identify low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department. This review article discusses the Asia-Pacific Evaluation of Chest Pain Trial (ASPECT) score, the Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain Trial (ADAPT) score, the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), the HEARTScore and the HEART pathway. These ADPs have been validated in various studies and aid the emergency provider with identifying the low-risk chest pain patient who is appropriate for discharge home, while at the same time highlighting those patients who would benefit from further in-patient work up. These approaches should be paired with patient input and shared decision-making strategies.

Effect of Using the HEART Score in Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Prognostic Factors in Chest Pain Patients: A Quantitative Analysis of the HEART Score.

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification for chest pain patients at the emergency department is recommended in several guidelines. The history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score is based on medical literature and expert opinion to estimate the risk of a major adverse cardiac event. We aimed to assess the predictive effects of the 5 HEART components and to compare performances of the original HEART score and a model based on regression analysis. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from 2388 patients, of whom 407 (17%) had a major adverse cardiac event within 6 weeks (acute myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, significant stenosis with conservative treatment and death due to any cause). RESULTS: Univariate regression analysis showed the same ordering of predictive effects as used in the HEART score. Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis, an adjusted score showed slightly better calibration and discrimination (c statistic HEART, 0.83, HEART-adj, 0.85). In comparison to HEART, HEART-adj proved in a decision curve analysis clinically useful for decision thresholds over 25%. Nevertheless, the original HEART classified patients better than HEART-adj (net reclassification improvement = 14.1%). CONCLUSION: The previously chosen weights of the 5 elements of the HEART score are supported by multivariable statistical analyses, although some improvement in calibration and discrimination is possible by adapting the score. The gain in clinical usefulness is relatively small and supports the use of either the original or adjusted HEART score in daily practice.

The diagnostic value of clinical symptoms in women and men presenting with chest pain at the emergency department, a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD) is more difficult in women than in men. Studies investigating the predictive value of clinical signs and symptoms and compare its combined diagnostic value between women and men are lacking. METHODOLOGY: Data from a large multicenter prospective study was used. Patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain but without ST-elevation were eligible. The endpoint was proven CAD, defined as a significant stenosis at angiography or the diagnosis of a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within six weeks after presentation at the ED. Twelve clinical symptoms and seven cardiovascular risk factors were collected. Potential predictors of CAD with a p-value <0.15 in the univariable analysis were included in a multivariable model. The diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors was quantified in women and men separately and areas under the curve (AUC) were compared between sexes. RESULTS: A total of 2433 patients were included. We excluded 102 patients (4%) with either an incomplete follow up or ST-elevation. Of the remaining 2331 patients 43% (1003) were women. CAD was present in 111 (11%) women and 278 (21%) men. In women 11 out of 12 and in men 10 out of 12 clinical symptoms were univariably associated with CAD. The AUC of symptoms alone was 0.74 (95%CI: 0.69-0.79) in women and 0.71 (95%CI: 0.68-0.75) in men and increased to respectively 0.79 (95%CI: 0.74-0.83) in women versus 0.75 (95%CI: 0.72-0.78) in men after adding cardiovascular risk factors. The AUCs of women and men were not significantly different (p-value symptoms alone: 0.45, after adding cardiovascular risk factors: 0.11). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors for the diagnosis of CAD in chest pain patients presenting on the ED was high in women and men. No significant differences were found between sexes.

Low-dose single acquisition rest (99m)Tc/stress (201)Tl myocardial perfusion SPECT protocol: phantom studies and clinical validation.

PURPOSE: We developed and tested a single acquisition rest (99m)Tc-sestamibi/stress (201)Tl dual isotope protocol (SDI) with the intention of improving the clinical workflow and patient comfort of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS: The technical feasibility of SDI was evaluated by a series of anthropomorphic phantom studies on a standard SPECT camera. The attenuation map was created by a moving transmission line source. Iterative reconstruction including attenuation correction, resolution recovery and Monte Carlo simulation of scatter was used for simultaneous reconstruction of dual tracer distribution. For clinical evaluation, patient studies were compared to stress (99m)Tc and rest (99m)Tc reference images acquired in a 2-day protocol. Clinical follow-up examinations like coronary angiography (CAG) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) were included in the assessment if available. RESULTS: Phantom studies demonstrated the technical feasibility of SDI. Artificial lesions inserted in the phantom mimicking ischaemia could be clearly identified. In 51/53 patients, the image quality was adequate for clinical evaluation. For the remaining two obese patients with body mass index > 32 the injected (201)Tl dose of 74 MBq was insufficient for clinical assessment. In answer to this the (201)Tl dose was adapted for obese patients in the rest of the study. In 31 patients, SDI and (99m)Tc reference images resulted in equivalent clinical assessment. Significant differences were found in 20 patients. In 18 of these 20 patients additional examinations were available. In 15 patients the diagnosis based on the SDI images was confirmed by the results of CAG or FFR. In these patients the SDI images were more accurate than the (99m)Tc reference study. In three patients minor ischaemic lesions were detected by SDI but were not confirmed by CAG. In one of these cases this was probably caused by pronounced apical thinning. For two patients no relevant clinical follow-up information was available for evaluation. CONCLUSION: The proposed SDI protocol has the potential to improve clinical workflow and patient comfort and suggests improved accuracy as demonstrated in the clinical feasibility study.

The value of clinical and laboratory diagnostics for chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The focus during the diagnostic process for patients with acute chest pain is to discriminate patients who can be safely discharged from those who are at risk for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this study the diagnostic value of the clinical examination is compared with laboratory testing of troponin. METHODS: This study included 710 chest pain patients who presented at the ED of two hospitals in the Netherlands. Clinical examination and laboratory testing were combined in the recently developed HEART-score. The diagnostic values of clinical presentation, troponin and the HEART-score for a major adverse coronary event (MACE) and an ACS within 6 weeks were assessed. Furthermore, the improvement of HEART with the second troponin measurement after 6 h was assessed using the net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: The use of HEART (AUCMACE: 0.77; AUCACS: 0.82) obtains a higher diagnostic value than troponin (AUCMACE: 0.72; AUCACS: 0.74) or clinical evaluation (AUCMACE: 0.69; AUCACS: 0.74). Statistical significant different AUCs were obtained when HEART is compared to troponin or clinical evaluation (p<0.01). The use of the second troponin test (after 6 h of admission) within HEART resulted in an improvement of 8.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART-score combines clinical evaluation and results from laboratory testing, which should be used together, to discriminate patients at risk of a cardiac event from patients who can be safely discharged. In addition, it is shown that a second troponin measurement slightly improves the discriminative ability of the HEART-score.