Search

The History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, and Risk factor (HEAR) and History and ECG-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (HE-MACS) risk scores can risk stratify chest pain patients without troponin measures. The objective of this study was to determine if either risk score could achieve the ≥99% negative predictive value (NPV) required to rule out major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) at 30 days or the ≥50% positive predictive value (PPV) indicative of a patient possibly needing interventional cardiology. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of the prospective multisite PARAHEART (n = 462, 12/2016-1/2018) and RESCUE (n = 767, 4/2018-1/2019) trials, which accrued adults ≥21 years old with acute non-traumatic chest pain transported by emergency medical services (EMS). Paramedics prospectively completed risk assessment forms. Very low risk was defined by a HEAR score of 0-1 or HE-MACS probability <4%. The primary outcome was 30-day MACE, which was determined by adjudication (PARAHEART) or electronic record review (RESCUE). NPV and PPV with exact 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for 30-day MACE were calculated for each risk score and compared using McNemar's tests. Among the PARAHEART and RESCUE cohorts, 30-day MACE occurred in 18.8% (87/462) and 6.9% (53/767) of patients, respectively. In PARAHEART, 7.8% (36/462) were very low risk by HEAR score vs. 7.8% (36/462) by HE-MACS (p = 1.0). The HEAR score had a NPV of 97.2% (95%CI 91.9-100.0) vs. 91.7% (95%CI 82.6-100.0) for HE-MACS (p = 0.15). The HEAR and HE-MACS PPVs were similar [46.4% (95%CI 28.0-64.9) vs. 33.3% (95%CI 13.2-53.5) (p = 0.26)]. In RESCUE, the HEAR score identified 14.2% (109/767) as low risk compared to 8.3% (64/767) by HE-MACS (p < 0.001). In this cohort, the HEAR and HE-MACS scores had similar NPVs [98.2% (95%CI 95.7-100.0) vs. 98.4% (95%CI 95.4-100.0) (p = 0.89)] and PPVs [16.2% (95%CI 6.2-32.0) vs. 22.6% (95%CI 12.3-36.2) (p = 0.41)]. In two prehospital chest pain cohorts, neither the HEAR score nor HE-MACS achieved sufficient NPV or PPV to rule out or rule in 30-day MACE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emergency medical services (EMS) assesses millions of patients with chest pain each year. However, tools validated to risk stratify patients for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE) have not been translated to the prehospital setting. The objective of this study is to assess the prehospital performance of risk stratification scores for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and PE. A prospective observational cohort study of patients ≥21 years of age with acute chest pain who were transported by EMS in two North Carolina (NC) counties was conducted from 18 April 2018–2 January 2019. In this convenience sample, paramedics completed HEAR (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factor), ED Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), Revised Geneva Score (RGS), and pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) assessments on each patient. MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) and PE at 30 days were determined by hospital records and NC Death Index. The positive (+LR) and negative likelihood ratios (−LR) of the risk scores for 30-day MACE and PE were calculated. During the study period, 82.1% (687/837) patients had all four risk score assessments. The cohort was 51.1% (351/687) female, 49.5% (340/687) African American, and had a mean age of 55.0 years (SD 16.0). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 7.4% (51/687), PE occurred in 0.9% (6/687), and the combined outcome occurred in 8.2% (56/687). The HEAR score had a − LR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.27–0.78) and + LR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.26–1.74) for 30-day MACE. EDACS had a − LR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.46–0.81) and + LR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.86–3.46) for 30-day MACE. The PERC score had a − LR of 0 (95% CI 0.0–1.4) and a + LR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.32–1.45) for 30-day PE. The RGS score had a − LR of 0 (95% CI 0.0–0.65) and a + LR of 2.36 (95% CI 2.16–2.57) for 30-day PE. The combination of a low-risk HEAR score and negative PERC evaluation had a − LR of 0.25 (95% CI 0.08–0.76) and a + LR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.21–1.30) for 30-day MACE or PE. The combination of a paramedic-obtained HEAR score and PERC evaluation performed best to exclude 30-day MACE and PE but was not sufficient for directing prehospital decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite negative troponins and nonischemic electrocardiograms (ECGs), patients at moderate risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are frequently admitted. The objective of this study was to describe the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate in moderate‐risk patients and how it differs based on history of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: A secondary analysis of the HEART Pathway implementation study was conducted. This prospective interrupted time‐series study accrued adults with possible ACS from three sites (November 2013–January 2016). This analysis excluded low‐risk patients determined by emergency providers' HEART Pathway assessments. Non–low‐risk patients were further classified as high risk, based on elevated troponin measures or ischemic ECG findings or as moderate risk, based on HEAR score ≥ 4, negative troponin measures, and a nonischemic ECG. Moderate‐risk patients were then stratified by the presence or absence of prior CAD (MI, revascularization, or ≥70% coronary stenosis). MACE (death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization) at 30 days was determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. MACE rates were compared among groups using a chi‐square test and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated. Results: Among 4,550 patients with HEART Pathway assessments, 24.8% (1,130/4,550) were high risk and 37.7% (1715/4550) were moderate risk. MACE at 30 days occurred in 3.1% (53/1,715; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3% to 4.0%) of moderate‐risk patients. Among moderate‐risk patients, MACE occurred in 7.1% (36/508, 95% CI = 5.1% to 9.8%) of patients with known CAD versus 1.4% (17/1,207, 95% CI = 0.9% to 2.3%) in patients without known prior CAD (p < 0.0001). The negative LR for 30‐day MACE among moderate‐risk patients without prior CAD was 0.08 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.12). Conclusion: MACE rates at 30 days were low among moderate‐risk patients but were significantly higher among those with prior CAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chest pain is a common reason for ambulance transport. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE) risk assessments, such as history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors (HEAR); Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS); Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC); and revised Geneva score, are well validated for emergency department (ED) use but have not been translated to the prehospital setting. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the 1) prehospital completion rate and 2) inter-rater reliability of chest pain risk assessments. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study in two emergency medical services (EMS) agencies (April 18, 2018 - January 2, 2019). Adults with acute, non-traumatic chest pain without ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable vital signs were accrued. Paramedics were trained to use the HEAR, EDACS, PERC, and revised Geneva score assessments. A subset of patients (a priori goal of N = 250) also had the four risk assessments completed by their treating clinicians in the ED, who were blinded to the EMS risk assessments. Outcomes were 1) risk assessments completion rate and 2) inter-rater reliability between EMS and ED assessments. An a priori goal for completion rate was set as >75%. We computed kappa with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each risk assessment as a measure of inter-rater reliability. Acceptable agreement was defined a priori as kappa > 0.60. Results: During the study period, 837 patients with acute chest pain were accrued. The median age was 54 years, interquartile range 43-66, with 53% female and 51% Black. Completion rates for each risk assessment were above goal: the HEAR score was completed on 95.1% (796/837), EDACS on 92.0% (770/837), PERC on 89.4% (748/837), and revised Geneva score on 90.7% (759/837) of patients. We assessed agreement in a subgroup of 260 patients. The HEAR score had a kappa of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.410.61); EDACS was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.49-0.72); PERC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.81); and revised Geneva score was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.39-0.62). Conclusion: The completion rate of risk assessments for ACS and PE was high for prehospital field personnel. The PERC and EDACS both demonstrated acceptable agreement between paramedics and clinicians in the ED, although assessments with better agreement are likely needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]