Search

Background: Many of the clinical risk scores routinely used for chest pain assessment have not been validated in patients at high risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We performed an independent comparison of HEART, TIMI, GRACE, FRISC, and PURSUIT scores for identifying chest pain due to ACS and for predicting 30-day death or re-infarction in patients arriving through Emergency Medical Services (EMS).Methods and Results: We enrolled consecutive EMS patients evaluated for chest pain at three emergency departments. A reviewer blinded to outcome data retrospectively reviewed patient charts to compute each risk score. The primary outcome was ACS diagnosed during the primary admission, and the secondary outcome was death or re-infarction within 30-days of initial presentation. Our sample included 750 patients (aged 59 ± 17 years, 42% female), of whom 115 (15.3%) had ACS and 33 (4.4%) had 30-day death or re-infarction. The c-statistics of HEART, TIMI, GRACE, FRISC, and PURSUIT for identifying ACS were 0.87, 0.86, 0.73, 0.84, and 0.79, respectively, and for predicting 30-day death or re-infarction were 0.70, 0.73, 0.72, 0.72, and 0.62, respectively. Sensitivity/negative predictive value of HEART ≥ 4 and TIMI ≥ 3 for ACS detection were 0.94/0.98 and 0.87/0.97, respectively.Conclusions: In chest pain patients admitted through EMS, HEART and TIMI outperform other scores for identifying chest pain due to ACS. Although both have similar negative predictive value, HEART has better sensitivity and lower rate of false negative results, thus it can be used preferentially over TIMI in the initial triage of this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Predictive value of the Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly, Drugs or alcohol use (HAS-BLED) score for clinical outcomes has been investigated in patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Many factors in the HAS-BLED model have been reported to be prognostic predictors in patients with post-myocardial infarction (MI). However, few studies have investigated the predictive value of HAS-BLED score on long-term survival in patients with post-MI. Methods A total of 617 patients with non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) without atrial fibrillation were enrolled. The Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), Can Rapid Risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE), and HAS-BLED risk scores were calculated for each patient. Results The C -statistics of TIMI, GRACE, CRUSADE, and HAS-BLED scores for 3-year survival were 0.658, 0.749, 0.756, and 0.765, respectively. For 3-year survival prediction, GRACE, CRUSADE, and HAS-BLED scores, respectively demonstrated superior performance than TIMI score and there was no significant difference between these three scores (GRACE vs. TIMI: z = 1.615, p = 0.027; CRUSADE vs. TIMI: z = 1.371, p = 0.043; HAS-BLED vs. TIMI: z = 1.899, p = 0.014; CRUSADE vs. GRACE: z = 0.078, p = 0.234; HAS-BLED vs. GRACE: z = 0.435, p = 0.166; HAS-BLED vs. CRUSADE: z = 0.353, p = 0.181). Multivariate analysis showed left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, old age, stroke history, bleeding history, and abnormal renal and liver function were independent predictors for 3-year mortality. Conclusions HAS-BLED scoring system is similar to the GRACE and CRUSADE systems but better than TIMI system to predict long-term survival outcomes in patients with NSTEMI without atrial fibrillation. However, HAS-BLED score is easier to calculate than GRACE and CRUSADE scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medicina (Buenos Aires) is the property of Medicina (Buenos Aires) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)