Using HEART2 score to risk stratify chest pain patients in the Emergency Department: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of chest pain patients had previous cardiac imaging tests (CIT) performed before being presented to the Emergency Department (ED). The HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) score has been used to risk-stratify chest pain patients in the ED, but not particularly for patients with CIT performed. We aim to modify the current HEART score with the addition of most recent CIT findings (referred to as HEART2 score), to predict a 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among ED chest pain patients, compare the performance accuracy of using HEART versus HEART2 score for 30-day MACE outcome predictions, and further determine the value of HEART2 in a subset group of ED chest pain patients (i.e., ones with previous CIT). METHODS: This is a single-center observational study. We included chest pain patients with HEART scores calculated during their index ED visits. A modified HEART2 score was developed with the addition of CIT findings as one of the HEART2 components. Patients were divided into three groups, including low (≤ 3), moderate (4-6), and high-risk HEART/HEART2 scores (≥ 7). MACE occurrence of a patient with different risks of HEART and HEART2 scores and overall performance accuracy of HEART versus HEART2 score predicting MACE outcomes were compared. RESULTS: We included a total of 9419 chest pain patients at ED, among which one out of five patients (1874/9419) had previous CIT performed. Fewer (38.2%) of such patients had low-risk HEART scores in comparison to 55.5% of low-risk HEART2 scores (p < 0.001). The MACE outcomes were similar in low-risk HEART patients compared with low-risk HEART2 patients (2.2% versus 3.1%, p = 0.3021). The overall performance accuracy of using the HEART2 score to stratify chest pain patients with previous CIT was better than using the HEART score's (AUC 0.74 versus 0.71, p = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: Using the HEART2 score might be suitable to stratify low-to-moderate risk chest pain patients at ED with a similar 30-days MACE occurrence compared to the HEART score. More importantly, with the use of similar low-risk criteria (HEART2 ≤ 3), over 45% more chest pain patients with previous CIT performed could be discharged directly from ED.

Role of HEART score in evaluating clinical outcomes among emergency department patients with different ethnicities.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the role of the HEART (history, EKG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score in the evaluation of six clinical outcomes among three groups of patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among three ED patient groups including White, Black, and Hispanic patients. ED providers used the HEART score to assess the need for patient hospital admission and for emergent cardiac imaging tests (CITs). HEART scores were measured using classification accuracy rates. Performance accuracies were measured in terms of HEART score in relation to four clinical outcomes (positive findings of CITs, ED returns, hospital readmissions, and 30-day major adverse cardiac events [MACE]). RESULTS: A high classification accuracy rate (87%) was found for use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. HEART scores showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66-0.78) in predicting results of emergent CITs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Providers adhered to use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. The HEART score may be associated with emergent CIT findings, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes, with no differences among White, Black, and Hispanic patient populations.

The Role of Using HEART Score to Risk Stratify Chest Pain Among Emergency Department High Utilizers.

The HEART score is used to effectively risk stratify undifferentiated chest pain patients in the Emergency Department (ED). It is unclear whether such risk stratification can be applied among ED high utilizers. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of using the HEART score to predict 30-day short-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED high utilizers. We conducted a retrospective, observational study in which ED high utilizers were defined as patients who had four or more ED visits within the past 12 months. ED high utilizers presenting at the study ED with chest pain were enrolled. Patients in which the HEART score was utilized were placed in the HEART group and patients with no HEART scores documented were placed to the usual care group. Hospital admissions and cardiac stress tests performed during the index hospitalizations, and 30-day MACE rates were analyzed and compared between the HEART and usual care groups. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019, a total of 8,315 patient visits from ED high utilizers were enrolled. In the HEART group, 49% of ED visits were admitted with 20% receiving stress tests. A 30-day MACE outcome occurred among 1.4% of visits. In the usual care group, 44% of ED visits were admitted, with only 9% receiving index stress tests and a 1.5% of 30-day MACE occurrence (p=0.727). The study showed that similar short-term MACE outcomes occurred between patients using HEART scores and usual care to risk stratify chest pain among ED high utilizers.

Distal myocardial protection with intracoronary beta blocker when added to a Gp IIb/IIIa platelet receptor blocker during percutaneous coronary intervention improves clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: The present study tested the hypothesis that intracoronary (IC) propranolol improves clinical outcomes with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) when used with background Gp IIb/IIIa receptor blockade. BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that administration of a relatively large weight-based IC dose of the beta blocker propranolol before PCI decreases the incidence of post-PCI myocardial infarction (MI) and improves short- and long-term outcome. It has previously been shown that administration of a Gp IIb/IIIa receptor blocker decreases post-PCI MI and improves short- and long-term clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCI (n = 400) were randomized in a prospective double-blind fashion to IC propranolol (n = 200) or placebo (n = 200) with eptifibatide administered to all the patients. Myocardial isoform of creatine kinase was measured during the first 24 hr and clinical outcomes at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: MI after PCI was seen in 21.5% of placebo and 12.5% of propranolol patients (relative risk reduction 0.42; 95%CI 0.09, 0.63; P = 0.016). At 30 days, the composite end point of death, post-procedural MI, urgent target lesion revascularization, or MI after index hospitalization occurred in 22.5% of placebo vs. 13.5% of propranolol patients (risk reduction 0.43; 95%CI 0.08, 0.65; P = 0.018). Similar results were observed at 1 year with adverse outcomes in 21.5% of propranolol and 32.5% of placebo patients (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: IC propranolol administration with the background Gp IIb/IIIa receptor blockade significantly reduces the incidence of post-PCI MI and improves the short- and long-term clinical outcome when compared with a Gp IIb/IIIa blocker alone.

Infective coronary aneurysms: a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention.

We present the case of a patient who developed infective coronary artery aneurysms after percutaneous coronary artery intervention. We describe the patient's clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment, and we review the pertinent medical literature.