Combining quick sequential organ failure assessment score with heart rate variability may improve predictive ability for mortality in septic patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Although the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score was recently introduced to identify patients with suspected infection/sepsis, it has limitations as a predictive tool for adverse outcomes. We hypothesized that combining qSOFA score with heart rate variability (HRV) variables improves predictive ability for mortality in septic patients at the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using the electronic medical record of a tertiary care hospital in Singapore between September 2014 and February 2017. All patients aged 21 years or older who were suspected with infection/sepsis in the ED and received electrocardiography monitoring with ZOLL X Series Monitor (ZOLL Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA) were included. We fitted a logistic regression model to predict the 30-day mortality using one of the HRV variables selected from one of each three domains those previously reported as strong association with mortality (i.e. standard deviation of NN [SDNN], ratio of low frequency to high frequency power [LF/HF], detrended fluctuation analysis α-2 [DFA α-2]) in addition to the qSOFA score. The predictive accuracy was assessed with other scoring systems (i.e. qSOFA alone, National Early Warning Score, and Modified Early Warning Score) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A total of 343 septic patients were included. Non-survivors were significantly older (survivors vs. non-survivors, 65.7 vs. 72.9, p <0.01) and had higher qSOFA (0.8 vs. 1.4, p <0.01) as compared to survivors. There were significant differences in HRV variables between survivors and non-survivors including SDNN (23.7s vs. 31.8s, p = 0.02), LF/HF (2.8 vs. 1.5, p = 0.02), DFA α-2 (1.0 vs. 0.7, P < 0.01). Our prediction model using DFA-α-2 had the highest c-statistic of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.82), followed by qSOFA of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.75), National Early Warning Score at 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.74), and Modified Early Warning Score at 0.59 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Adding DFA-α-2 to the qSOFA score may improve the accuracy of predicting in-hospital mortality in septic patients who present to the ED. Further multicenter prospective studies are required to confirm our results.

Integrating heart rate variability, vital signs, electrocardiogram, and troponin to triage chest pain patients in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Current triage methods for chest pain patients typically utilize symptoms, electrocardiogram (ECG), and vital sign data, requiring interpretation by dedicated triage clinicians. In contrast, we aimed to create a quickly obtainable model integrating the objective parameters of heart rate variability (HRV), troponin, ECG, and vital signs to improve accuracy and efficiency of triage for chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Adult patients presenting to the ED with chest pain from September 2010 to July 2015 were conveniently recruited. The primary outcome was a composite of revascularization, death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, or lethal arrhythmia within 72-h of presentation to the ED. To create the chest pain triage (CPT) model, logistic regression was done where potential covariates comprised of vital signs, ECG parameters, troponin, and HRV measures. Current triage methods at our institution and modified early warning score (MEWS) were used as comparators. RESULTS: A total of 797 patients were included for final analysis of which 146 patients (18.3%) met the primary outcome. Patients were an average age of 60years old, 68% male, and 56% triaged to the most acute category. The model consisted of five parameters: pain score, ST-elevation, ST-depression, detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) α1, and troponin. CPT model>0.09, CPT model>0.15, current triage methods, and MEWS≥2 had sensitivities of 86%, 74%, 75%, and 23%, respectively, and specificities of 45%, 71%, 48%, and 78%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The CPT model may improve current clinical triage protocols for chest pain patients in the ED.

Comparing HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores for prediction of 30-day major adverse cardiac events in high acuity chest pain patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores have been applied in the Emergency Department (ED) to risk stratify patients with undifferentiated chest pain. This study aims to compare the accuracy of HEART, TIMI, and GRACE for the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in high acuity chest pain patients. METHODS: Adult patients who presented with chest pain suggestive of cardiac origin in the most acute triage category at an academic ED from September 2010 to October 2015 were included. The HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores were calculated retrospectively from prospectively collected data. The primary outcome was occurrence of MACE (mortality, AMI, PCI, CABG) within 30-days of initial presentation. RESULTS: 604 patients were included in the study. Patient demographics include an average age of 61years, 69% male, and 48% with history of ischemic heart disease. 36% of patients met the primary outcome. The c-statistics of HEART, TIMI, and GRACE were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74-0.81), 0.65 (95% CI: 0.60-0.69), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.58-0.67), respectively. For the purpose of accurately ruling out patients for 30-day MACE, a HEART score of ≤3 had a sensitivity and NPV of 99% and 98%, respectively, compared to 97% and 91%, respectively, for TIMI=0, and 94% and 85%, respectively, for GRACE ≤75. The percent of patients with 30-day MACE with HEART scores between 0 and 3, 4-6, and 7-10 was 2%, 28%, and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In high acuity chest pain patients, the HEART score is superior to the TIMI and GRACE scores in predicting 30-day MACE.