Pre-hospital evaluation of chest pain patients using the modified HEART-score: rationale and design.

Background: This study assesses how ambulance paramedics using the modified HEART-score with a point-of-care cardiac troponin (cTn) compare to the emergency physicians using the modified HEART-score with a high-sensitive cTn (hs-cTn) in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), focusing on interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. Methods: In this prospective multicenter cohort, we compare four cTn testing strategies (serial point of care and hs-cTn cTn measurement) with and without the HEART-score. Outcomes include the HEART-score's interobserver agreement, NSTE-ACS at discharge, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after 30 days, and diagnostic accuracy of the different strategies. Conclusion: The POPular HEART study aims to improve NSTE-ACS diagnostic pathways, promoting pre-hospital detection and ruling out of NSTE-ACS to minimize unnecessary hospitalizations and associated costs.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04851418 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What & why? Many people visit the emergency department (ED) due to chest pain, often worried about the possibility of a heart attack. While acute heart attacks can often be detected through an electrocardiogram (ECG; a test of the heart's electrical activity), a significant number of patients with a heart attack have a normal ECG. These patients require further testing to measure cardiac troponin (cTn; an indicator of heart damage) in the hospital to rule out a heart attack, known as non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). To improve diagnosis and care for these patients, we compared two approaches: ambulance paramedics using a quick bedside cTn test and the HEART-score, versus hospital doctors using a more sensitive cTn test with the HEART-score. The HEART score combines factors like the patient's medical history, ECG results, age, risk factors, and cTn levels to assess the risk of heart problems. In this comparison, the key difference lies in how cTn levels are measured ­ either through a quick finger prick test in an ambulance using a point-of-care device or a more detailed analysis in a hospital laboratory.How? We focused on patients visited by emergency medical services for chest pain suspected of a heart attack and transported to the hospital. We assessed the quick bedside test by paramedics and the detailed hospital test by doctors, alongside the use of the HEART score in both settings. Our evaluation looked at the agreement between these methods and their effectiveness in identifying or excluding an NSTE-ACS.What? Our research, known as the POPular HEART study, seeks to simplify the early identification or rule-out of an NSTE-ACS in patients with chest pain directly by ambulance. This approach aims to decrease unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce healthcare costs.Main points We're exploring innovative methods to safely identify patients with a very low risk of NSTE-ACS in individuals with chest pain outside the hospital. Our objective is to safely minimize hospital admissions that may not be necessary, thereby saving resources. By doing so, we aim to alleviate the pressure on EDs and contribute to more cost-effective healthcare.

Ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with mechanical chest compressions: How often are two insufflations being given during the 3-second ventilation pauses?

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices in 30:2 mode provide 3-second pauses to allow for two insufflations. We aimed to determine how often two insufflations are provided in these ventilation pauses, in order to assess if prehospital providers are able to ventilate out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients successfully during mechanical chest compressions. METHODS: Data from OHCA cases of the regional ambulance service of Utrecht, The Netherlands, were prospectively collected in the UTrecht studygroup for OPtimal registry of cardIAc arrest database (UTOPIA). Compression pauses and insufflations were visualized on thoracic impedance and waveform capnography signals recorded by manual defibrillators. Ventilation pauses were analyzed for number of insufflations, duration of the subintervals of the ventilation cycles, and ratio of successfully providing two insufflations over the course of the resuscitation. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to accurately estimate proportions and means. RESULTS: In 250 cases, 8473 ventilation pauses were identified, of which 4305 (51%) included two insufflations. When corrected for non-independence of the data across repeated measures within the same subjects with a mixed effects analysis, two insufflations were successfully provided in 45% of ventilation pauses (95% CI: 40-50%). In 19% (95% CI: 16-22%) none were given. CONCLUSION: Providing two insufflations during pauses in mechanical chest compressions is mostly unsuccessful. We recommend developing strategies to improve giving insufflations when using mechanical chest compression devices. Increasing the pause duration might help to improve insufflation success.