Interrater agreement of the HEART score history component: A chart review study.

Study objectives: This study investigated the interrater reliability of the history component of the HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk, troponin) score between physicians in emergency medicine (EM) and internal medicine (IM) at 1 tertiary-care center. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of 60 encounters selected randomly from a database of 417 patients with chest pain presenting from January to June 2016 to an urban tertiary-care center. A total of 4 raters (1 EM attending, 1 EM resident, 1 IM attending, and 1 IM resident) scored the previously abstracted history data from these encounters.The primary outcome was the interrater agreement of HEART score history components, as measured by kappa coefficient, between EM and IM attending physicians. Secondary outcomes included the agreement between attending and resident physicians, overall agreement, pairwise percent agreement, and differences in scores assigned. Results: The kappa value for the EM attending physician and IM attending physician was 0.33 with 55% agreement. Interrater agreement of the other pairs was substantial between EM attending and resident but was otherwise fair to moderate. Percent agreement between the other pairs ranged from 48.3% to 80%. There was a significant difference in scores assigned and the subgroup in which there was disagreement between the raters demonstrated significantly higher scores by the EM attending and resident when compared to the IM attending. Conclusion: This study demonstrates fair agreement between EM and IM attending physicians in the history component of the HEART score with significantly higher scores by the EM attending physician in cases of disagreement at 1 tertiary-care center.

Are Patients Discharged on the HEART Pathway Following Up?

INTRODUCTION: The HEART (history, electrocardiogram [ECG], age, risk factors, troponin) pathway is a useful tool in the emergency department to identify patients that are safe for outpatient evaluation of chest pain. A dedicated HEART Clinic to follow-up versus primary care remains a topic that requires further delineation. We sought to identify how many patients discharged on the HEART pathway specifically followed up with the established HEART Clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published dataset. In an initial validation study of the HEART Pathway, 625 consecutive subjects were identified via chart review, 449 of which were included. We identified subjects for inclusion in this study if they were found to have a HEART score of 3 or less. Subjects were excluded if they were admitted or if their follow-up was beyond 6 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 449 subjects, 185 met criteria for study inclusion. 125 (67.6%) had follow-up with an average time of 7.94 days (95% CI: 6.54-9.34). Of those, half had additional testing such as ECG, cardiac computed tomography angiography, and treadmill stress testing. The most common clinics for follow-up were the Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and HEART Clinic representing 35.8, 29, and 18% of the follow-ups, respectively. No subject died, had a myocardial infarction, or required reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Of the subjects discharged on the HEART Pathway, 67.6% followed up. Of those subjects that followed up, 18% did so at the HEART Clinic.

A HEART Pathway pitfall in an admitted patient.

This paper discusses a possible weakness of the HEART Pathway specific to patients identified as high risk, requiring admission for inpatient risk stratification. Emergency Department (ED) crowding is at an all-time high and the possibility that many of these patients will board in the ED for a period of time before they are transported to an inpatient ward is becoming more likely. Given troponins peak at 6 h after the initial cardiac injury, it is plausible an initial troponin could still remain negative upon arrival. Extending the HEART Pathway to include a 3-hour delta troponin for admitted patients boarded in the emergency department may help alert the patient's inpatient team of those requiring more aggressive evaluations or more timely interventions. The case discussed herein highlights the course of a patient who was admitted to a medicine floor for chest pain along the HEART Pathway. After remaining in the ED for 3 h following admission a second troponin was drawn that resulted in the diagnosis of a non-ST segment myocardial infarction. The patient then received further management in the ED and a change in admission to the Cardiac Care Unit instead of the medicine floor. The patient ultimately received a Coronary Artery Bypass Graft during admission. If the patient had not had the second troponin while in the ED this care would have been delayed.

Impact of the HEART Pathway on Admission Rates for Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain: An External Clinical Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint. Safe discharge mechanisms for low-risk chest pain patients would be useful. OBJECTIVE: To compare admission rates prior to and after implementation of an accelerated disposition pathway for ED patients with low-risk chest pain based upon the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) score (HEART pathway). METHODS: We conducted an impact analysis of the HEART pathway. Patients with a HEART score ≥ 4 underwent hospital admission for cardiac risk stratification and monitoring. Patients with a HEART score ≤ 3 could opt for discharge with 72-h follow-up in lieu of admission. We collected data on cohorts prior to and after implementation of the new disposition pathway. For each cohort, we screened the charts of 625 consecutive chest pain patients. We measured patient demographics, past medical history, vital signs, HEART score, disposition, and 6-week major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using chart review methodology. We compared our primary outcome of hospital admission between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The admission rate for the preintervention cohort was 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-68.2%), vs. 48.3% (95% CI 43.7-53.0%) for the postintervention cohort. The absolute difference in admission rates was 15.3% (95% CI 8.7-21.8%). The odds ratio of admission for the postintervention cohort in a logistic regression model controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and vital signs was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33-0.66). One postintervention cohort patient leaving the ED against medical advice (HEART Score 4) experienced 6-week MACE. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART pathway may provide a safe mechanism to optimize resource allocation for risk-stratifying ED chest pain patients.