30 day predicted outcome in undifferentiated chest pain: multicenter validation of the HEART score in Tunisian population.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain remains one of the most challenging serious complaints in the emergency department (ED). A prompt and accurate risk stratification tool for chest pain patients is paramount to help physcian effectively progrnosticate outcomes. HEART score is considered one of the best scores for chest pain risk stratification. However, most validation studies of HEART score were not performed in populations different from those included in the original one. OBJECTIVE: To validate HEART score as a prognostication tool, among Tunisian ED patients with undifferentiated chest pain. METHODS: Our prospective, multicenter study enrolled adult patients presenting with chest pain at chest pain units. Patients over 30 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain were enrolled. HEART score was calculated for every patient. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events (MACE) occurrence, including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularisation over 30 days following the ED visit. The discriminative power of HEART score was evaluated by the area under the ROC curve. A calibration analysis of the HEART score in this population was performed using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of test. RESULTS: We enrolled 3880 patients (age 56.3; 59.5% males). The application of HEART score showed that most patients were in intermediate risk category (55.3%). Within 30 days of ED visit, MACE were reported in 628 (16.2%) patients, with an incidence of 1.2% in the low risk group, 10.8% in the intermediate risk group and 62.4% in the high risk group. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.88). HEART score was not well calibrated (χ2 statistic = 12.34; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: HEART score showed a good discrimination performance in predicting MACE occurrence at 30 days for Tunisian patients with undifferentiated acute chest pain. Heart score was not well calibrated in our population.

Inaccuracy of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction and Global Registry in Acute Coronary Events scores in predicting outcome in ED patients with potential ischemic chest pain.

PURPOSE: The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and the Global Registry in Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores were largely evaluated and validated in stratifying risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chest pain and acute coronary syndrome. Our objective was to compare these 2 scores in predicting outcome in emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated chest pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study including patients presenting to 4 EDs with chest pain with nondiagnostic or normal ECG. For all included patients (n = 3125), TIMI and GRACE scores were calculated. Follow-up was conducted at 30-day and 1-year post-ED index admission to identify major adverse events. Main outcome included all cause mortality, acute coronary syndrome, and coronary non-ED planned revascularization. Prognostic performance of the scores was assessed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: We reported 285 (9.1%) major adverse events at 30 days and 436 (13.9%) at 1 year. In patients with low TIMI (≤2) and GRACE (<109) scores, a significant proportion had major adverse events at 30 days (5% and 7.5%, respectively) and 1 year (7.9% and 12.9%, respectively). Area under ROC curve at 30 days was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.71) vs 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62), respectively, for TIMI and GRACE scores. At 1 year, the area under ROC was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.71) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.60-0.70), respectively, for TIMI and GRACE scores. CONCLUSIONS: The TIMI and GRACE scores are not valid in short- and long-term risk stratification in our chest pain patients.