ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Chest pain is one of the most common presentations to the emergency department (ED). The HEART-score is used to assess the 30-day risk of developing a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). The HEART-score enables clinicians to classify patients in low, intermediate, or high-risk groups though little is known as to whether this can be done reliably and reproducibly in a prehospital setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the interobserver agreement of the HEART-score between ambulance nurses and ED physicians. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years, with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin presented by ambulance to the EDs of four regional hospitals, were prospectively enrolled between October 2018 and April 2019. OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was interobserver agreement of the HEART-scores calculated by ambulance nurses compared to those calculated by ED physicians. Agreement was measured using Cohen's Kappa (K) both for overall HEART-score and dichotomized HEART categories. A secondary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE at 30 days after inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were enrolled of which 166 patients were male (54%). The mean age was 64.8 years. In 23% (95% confidence interval, 18-27), patients were scored in the low-risk category by both ambulance nurses and ED physicians. The K for the overall HEART-score compared between ambulance nurses and ED physicians was 0.514. The K for the low-risk category versus intermediate and high-risk category was 0.591. Both are defined as 'moderate'. MACE within 30 days occurred in 64 patients (21%). In the low-risk group as defined by the ambulance nurses, there was a 7% risk of MACE compared to an average 5% MACE risk in the ED physician group. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate interobserver agreement of the HEART-score does not currently support the use of the HEART-score by ambulance nurses in a prehospital setting. Training for prehospital nurses is vital to ensure that they are able to calculate the HEART-score accurately.
Subject(s)
Chest Pain , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Prospective Studies , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.
