Comparison of heart, grace and TIMI scores to predict major adverse cardiac events from chest pain in a Spanish health care region.

Acute non-traumatic chest pain (ANTCP) is the second cause of consultation in the Emergency department (ED). About 70% of all Acute Myocardial Infarctions present as non persistent ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in the electrocardiogram. Our aim was to compare whether the HEART risk score is more effective than the GRACE and TIMI scores for the diagnosis and prognosis of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at six weeks in patients with ANTCP and NSTE-ACS. A prospective cohort study was conducted with patients with ANTCP that attended an ED and a Primary Care Emergency Center (PCEC) from April 2018 to December 2020. The primary outcome was MACE at six weeks. Diagnostic performance was calculated for each scale as the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and predictive values (PV). Qualitative variables were compared using the Chi-square test, and continuous variables were compared using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. We adjusted a logistic regression for risk groups, age, and gender to determine the effect of the HEART, GRACE, and TIMI scores on MACE. The degree of agreement (kappa index) was calculated in the categorical classification of patients according to the three risk scales. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed for each scale and were compared using partial likelihood ratio tests for non-nested models. From a sample of 317 patients with ANTCP, 14.82% had MACE at six weeks. The AUC was 0.743 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) for the HEART score, 0.717 (95% CI 0.64-0.79) for the TIMI score, and 0.649 (95% CI 0.561-0.738) for the GRACE score. The HEART scale identified low-risk patients with a higher SE and negative PV than the GRACE and TIMI scores. The HEART scale was better than the GRACE and TIMI scores at diagnosing and predicting MACE at six weeks in patients with ANTCP and probable NSTE-ACS. It was also a reliable tool for risk stratification in low-risk patients. Its application is feasible in EDs and PCECs, avoiding the need for complementary tests and their associated costs without compromising patient health.

A retrospective HEART risk score comparation of acute non-traumatic chest pain patients in an emergency department in Spain.

Non traumatic chest pain is the second most common cause of attention at the Emergency Departments (ED). The objective is to compare the effectiveness of HEART risk score and the risk of having a Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE) during the following 6 weeks in 'Acute Non-traumatic Chest Pain' (ANTCP) patients of an ED in Lleida (Spain). The ANTCP patient cohort was defined using medical data from January 2015 to January 2016. A retrospective study was performed among 300 ANTCP patients. Diagnostic accuracy to predict MACE, HEART risk score effectiveness and patient risk stratification were analysed on the ANTCP Cohort. HEART risk score was conducted on ANTCP Cohort data and patients were stratified as low-risk (n = 116, 38.7%), moderate-risk (n = 164, 54.7%) and high-risk (n = 20, 6.7%); differently from the assessment performed by 'Current Emergency Department Guidelines' (CEDG) on the same patients: low risk and discharge (n = 56, 18.7%), medium risk and need of complementary tests (n = 137, 45.7%) and high risk and hospital admission (n = 107, 35.7%).The incidence of MACE was 2.5%, 20.7% and 100% in low, moderate and high-risk, respectively. Discrimination and accuracy indexes were moderate (AUC = 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.80). Clustering moderate-high risk groups by MACE incidence showed an 89.5% of sensitivity. Data obtained from this study suggests that HEART risk score stratified better 'acute non-traumatic chest pain' (ANTCP) patients in an Emergency Department (ED) compared with 'Current Emergency Department Guidelines' (CEDG) at the Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova (HUAV). HEART score would reduce the number of subsequent consultations, unnecessary admissions and complementary tests.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

The Risk of Hospitalization in COVID-19 Patients Can Be Predicted by Lung Ultrasound in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Lung Ultrasound (LUS) for the diagnosis of interstitial syndrome caused by COVID-19 has been broadly described. The aim of this study was to evaluate if LUS may predict the complications (hospital admission) of COVID-19 pneumonia in primary care patients. METHODS: This observational study collects data from a cohort of 279 patients with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 pneumonia who attended the Balaguer Primary Health Care Area between 16 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. We collected the results of LUS scans reported by one general practitioner. We created a database and analysed the absolute and relative frequencies of LUS findings and their association with hospital admission. We found that different LUS patterns (diffuse, attenuated diffuse, and predominantly unilateral) were risk factors for hospital admission (p < 0.05). Additionally, an evolutionary pattern during the acute phase represented a risk factor (p = 0.0019). On the contrary, a normal ultrasound pattern was a protective factor (p = 0.0037). Finally, the presence of focal interstitial pattern was not associated with hospital admission (p = 0.4918). CONCLUSION: The lung ultrasound was useful to predict complications in COVID-19 pneumonia and to diagnose other lung diseases such as cancer, tuberculosis, pulmonary embolism, chronic interstitial pneumopathy, pleuropericarditis, pneumonia or heart failure.