A comparative analysis of risk stratification tools for emergency department patients with chest pain.
Int J Emerg Med
; 7(1): 10, 2014 Feb 07.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-24506937
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain is dependent on clinical evaluation of risk. A number of chest pain risk stratification tools have been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using risk assessment tools from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA), the Goldman risk score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS).METHODS:
This prospective observational study evaluated ED patients aged ≥30 years with non-traumatic chest pain for which no definitive non-ischemic cause was found. Data collected included demographic and clinical information, investigation findings and occurrence of MACE by 30 days. The outcome of interest was the comparative predictive performance of the risk tools for MACE at 30 days, as analyzed by receiver operator curves (ROC).RESULTS:
Two hundred eighty-one patients were studied; the rate of MACE was 14.1%. Area under the curve (AUC) of the HFA, TIMI RS and Goldman tools for the endpoint of MACE was 0.54, 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, with the difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE being highly significant [chi2 (3) = 67.21, N = 276, p < 0.0001].CONCLUSION:
The TIMI RS and Goldman tools performed better than the HFA in this undifferentiated ED chest pain population, but selection of cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity was problematic. There is an urgent need for validated risk stratification tools specific for the ED chest pain population.
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Etiology_studies
/
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2014
Tipo de documento:
Article