Comparison of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI score to predict major adverse cardiac events in chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The performance of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI scores were compared in predicting the probability of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in chest pain patients presenting at the emergency department (ED), in particular their ability to identify patients at low risk. METHODS: Chest pain patients presenting at the ED in nine Dutch hospitals were included. The primary outcome was MACE within 6weeks. The HEART score was determined by the treating physician at the ED. The GRACE and TIMI score were calculated based on prospectively collected data. Performance of the scores was compared by calculating AUC curves. Additionally, the number of low-risk patients identified by each score were compared at a fixed level of safety of at least 95% or 98% sensitivity. RESULTS: In total, 1748 patients were included. The AUC of GRACE, HEART, and TIMI were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76%), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.88%) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83%), respectively (all differences in AUC highly statistically significant). At an absolute level of safety of at least 98% sensitivity, the GRACE score identified 231 patients as "low risk" in which 2.2% a MACE was missed; the HEART score identified 381 patients as "low risk" with 0.8% missed MACE. The TIMI score identified no "low risk" patients at this safety level. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score outperformed the GRACE and TIMI scores in discriminating between those with and without MACE in chest pain patients, and identified the largest group of low-risk patients at the same level of safety.

Medical consumption compared for TIMI and HEART score in chest pain patients at the emergency department: a retrospective cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which risk score (TIMI score or HEART score) identifies the largest population of low-risk patients at the emergency department (ED). Furthermore, we retrospectively calculated the corresponding expected decrease in medical consumption if these patients would have been discharged from the ED. METHODS: We performed analyses in two hospitals of the multicentre prospective validation study of the HEART score, executed in 2008 and 2009. Patients with chest pain presenting to the ED were included and information was collected on major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and on hospital admissions and diagnostic procedures within 6 weeks. The TIMI and HEART score were calculated for each patient. RESULTS: We analysed 640 patients (59% male, mean age of 60, cumulative incidence of MACE 17%). An estimated total of €763 468 was spent during follow-up on hospital admission and diagnostic procedures. In total, 256 (40%) patients had a HEART score of 0-3 and were considered low risk (miss rate 1.6%), a total of €64 107 was spent on diagnostic procedures and hospital admission after initial presentation in this group. In comparison, 105 (16%) patients with TIMI score of 0 were considered low risk (miss rate 0%), with a total of €14 670 spent on diagnostic procedures and initial hospital admission costs. With different cut-offs for low risk, HEART 0-2 (miss rate 0.7%), would have resulted in a total of €25 365 in savings, compared with €71 905 when an alternative low risk cut-off for TIMI of TIMI≤1 would be used (miss rate 3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score identifies more patients as low risk compared with the TIMI score, which may lead to a larger reduction in diagnostic procedures and costs in this low-risk group. Future studies should prospectively investigate whether adhering to the HEART score in clinical practice and early discharge of low-risk patients is safe and leads to a reduction in medical consumption.

A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The focus of the diagnostic process in chest pain patients at the emergency department is to identify both low and high risk patients for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The HEART score was designed to facilitate this process. This study is a prospective validation of the HEART score. METHODS: A total of 2440 unselected patients presented with chest pain at the cardiac emergency department of ten participating hospitals in The Netherlands. The HEART score was assessed as soon as the first lab results and ECG were obtained. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were (i) the occurrence of AMI and death, (ii) ACS and (iii) the performance of a coronary angiogram. The performance of the HEART score was compared with the TIMI and GRACE scores. RESULTS: Low HEART scores (values 0-3) were calculated in 36.4% of the patients. MACE occurred in 1.7%. In patients with HEART scores 4-6, MACE was diagnosed in 16.6%. In patients with high HEART scores (values 7-10), MACE occurred in 50.1%. The c-statistic of the HEART score (0.83) is significantly higher than the c-statistic of TIMI (0.75)and GRACE (0.70) respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome, without computer-required calculating. Low HEART scores (0-3), exclude short-term MACE with >98% certainty. In these patients one might consider reserved policies. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10) the high risk of MACE may indicate more aggressive policies.

Consumption of diagnostic procedures and other cardiology care in chest pain patients after presentation at the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The HEART score serves risk stratification of chest pain patients at the emergency department (ED). Quicker and more solid decisions may be taken in these patients with application of this score. An analysis of medical consumption of 122 acute chest pain patients admitted before the introduction of this score may be indicative of possible savings. METHODS: Numbers of cardiology investigations and clinical admission days were counted. Charged cost of medicine was divided into three categories: ED, in-hospital, and outpatient clinic. RESULTS: The total cost of care was 469,631, with an average of 3849 per patient. Seventy-five percent of this cost was due to hospitalisation under the initial working diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This diagnosis was confirmed in only 29/122 (24 %) of the patients. The low-risk group (41 patients with HEART scores 0-3) included one patient with a previously scheduled CABG. In the remaining 40 patients, hospitalisation occurred in 12/40 (30 %) patients and 30/40 (75 %) patients visited the outpatient clinic. The total cost of medical care after presentation of these 40 patients was 37,641; there were no cases where a new diagnosis of coronary artery disease was made. When medical care in this subgroup is declared redundant, major savings on national medical care budgets could be made. CONCLUSION: If the HEART score were to be routinely applied, diagnostic pathways could be shortened and costs reduced, in particular in low-risk patients.

Risk scores for patients with chest pain: evaluation in the emergency department.

Chest pain is a common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). Absolute criteria for Acute Coronary Syndrome without ST elevation (NSTE-ACS) are lacking. An acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be distinguished from a variety of other cardiac and non-cardiac diseases that may cause chest pain.For patients with confirmed ACS, several scoring methods can be applied in order to distinguish patients in the coronary care unit who may benefit most from therapies. The PURSUIT, TIMI, GRACE and FRISC risk scores are well validated with this respect. However, none of these risk scores has been used in the identification of an ACS in the emergency setting. The vast majority of patients with chest pain due to causes other than ACS were not evaluated in these trials. An evidence-based systematic stratification and policy for these patients does not currently exist.The more recently developed HEART score is specifically designed to stratify all chest pain patients in the ED. The HEART score was validated in a retrospective multicenter study and proved to be a strong predictor of event free survival on one hand and potentially life threatening cardiac events on the other hand. The HEART score facilitates risk stratification of chest pain patients in the ED.

Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the HEART score.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is one of the most common causes of presentation to the emergency room. The diagnosis of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome typically causes uncertainty. Classical considerations for risk stratification are History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART). Each can be scored with zero, one or two points, depending on the extent of the abnormality. The HEART score is the sum of these five considerations. Methods. Clinical data from 122 patients referred to the emergency room for chest pain were analysed. The predictive value of the HEART score for reaching an endpoint was evaluated in 120/122 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients reached one or more endpoints: an acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 16 patients, 20 underwent revascularisation and two died. The HEART score in the patients with and without an endpoint was 6.51+/-1.84 and 3.71+/-1.83 (p<0.0001) respectively. A HEART score of 0-3 points holds a risk of 2.5% for an endpoint and supports an immediate discharge. With a risk of 20.3%, a HEART score of 4-6 points implies admission for clinical observation. A HEART score >/=7points, with a risk of 72.7%, supports early invasive strategies. CONCLUSION: The HEART score facilitates accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices. The HEART score is an easy, quick and reliable predictor of outcome in chest pain patients. (Neth Heart J 2008;16:191-6.).