SVEAT score: Acute chest pain risk stratification.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the predictive ability of the newly introduced Symptoms, history of Vascular disease, Electrocardiography, Age, and Troponin (SVEAT) score with the widely used History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin I (HEART) score in risk stratification for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) development among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain complaints. METHODS: This prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted at an emergency department of a tertiary care hospital between June 2022 and January 2023. We recruited all adult patients aged 24 years and above with a primary complaint of non- traumatic chest pain at the critical care unit of the Emergency Department. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients aged 24 years and above with a primary complaint of chest pain lasting >5 min. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients with STEMI, pregnant individuals, those with traumatic chest pain, and those without 30-day MACE data were excluded. HEART and SVEAT scores were calculated for each participant.The performance of the SVEAT score in identifying the low-risk patient group was compared to that of the HEART score. RESULTS: In the study, out of 809 patients, 589 (72.8%) were categorized as low-risk based on the SVEAT score, and 377 (46.6%) based on the HEART score. Out of these 809 patients, 115 (14.2%) experienced MACE. Within the group classified as low risk by the SVEAT score, 6 (0.7%) patients experienced MACE, while within the group classified as low risk by the HEART score, 8 (1%) patients experienced MACE. The SVEAT score had an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.916 (95% CI 0.890 to 0.942), which was found to be higher than the AUC of the HEART score (0.856, 95% CI 0.822 to 0.890). In our study, the sensitivity of the SVEAT and HEART scores was found to be 94.7% (95% CI 88.9%-98.0%) and 93.0% (95% CI 86.7%-96.9%), respectively. The specificity of both scores was 84.1% (95% CI 81.0%-86.6%) and 53.17% (95% CI 49.3%-56.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: While our study indicated a higher predictive power for MACE development with the SVEAT score compared to the HEART score, further extensive studies are necessary for its reliable implementation in emergency departments for chest pain risk classification.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Electrocardiography Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (Cornell Voltage Criteria, Sokolow-Lyon Index, Romhilt-Estes, and Peguero-Lo Presti Criteria) Compared to Transthoracic Echocardiography.

OBJECTIVE/AIM: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the widely used left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) electrocardiography (ECG) criteria (Cornell Voltage Criteria [CVC], Sokolow-Lyon Index [SLI], Romhilt-Estes [REC], and Peguero-Lo Presti [PLP] Criteria) compared with the left ventricular mass measured by echocardiography. METHODS: In this prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we screened all consecutive adults (18 to 65 years) who presented to our academic emergency department (ED) with increased blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg) between January 2016 and January 2017, and we enrolled a convenience sample of 165 patients in our study. The attending emergency physician managed all patients as per their primary complaint. The consulting cardiologist performed a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) of the patient and calculated the left ventricular mass (LVM) according to the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) formula. After completing the patient recruitment phase, researchers evaluated all ECGs and calculated scores for SLI, CVC, REC, and PLP. We used contingency tables to calculate the diagnostic utility metrics of all ECG criteria. RESULTS: The prevalence of LVH by TTE was 31.5%. CVC, SLI, REC, and PLP criteria correctly identified (true positive rate) abnormal LVM in only 3.9%, 1.9%, 9.6%, and 19.2% of the patients, respectively. CVC, SLI, REC score and PLP criteria performed poorly with extremely low sensitivities (3.9%, 1.9%, 10%, 19.2%) and poor accuracies (67.3%, 64.9%, 57.7%, 69.7%). CONCLUSION: ECG voltage criteria's clinical utility in estimating LVM and LVH is low, and it should not be used for this purpose.