OBJECTIVES: Cardiac multidetector computed tomography (CMCT) has potential to be used as a screening test for patients with acute chest pain, but several tools are already used to risk-stratify this population. Risk models exist that stratify need for intensive care (Goldman), short-term prognosis (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction, TIMI), and 1-year events (Sanchis). We applied these cardiovascular risk models to candidates for CMCT and assessed sensitivity for prediction of in-hospital acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that none of the models would achieve a sensitivity of 90% or greater, thereby justifying use of CMCT in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: We analyzed TIMI, Goldman, and Sanchis in 148 consecutive patients with chest pain, nondiagnostic electrocardiogram, and negative initial cardiac biomarkers who previously met inclusion and exclusion criteria for the Rule-Out Myocardial Infarction Using Coronary Artery Tomography Study. ACS was adjudicated, and risk scores were categorized based on established criteria. Risk score agreement was assessed with weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 17 (11%) of 148 patients had ACS. For all risk models, sensitivity was poor (range, 35%-53%), and 95% confidence intervals did not cross above 77%. Agreement to risk-classify patients was poor to moderate (weighted kappa range, 0.18-0.43). Patients categorized as "low risk" had nonzero rates of ACS using all 3 scoring models (range, 8%-9%). CONCLUSIONS: Available risk scores had poor sensitivity to detect ACS in patients with acute chest pain. Because of the small number of patients in this data set, these findings require confirmation in larger studies.
OBJECTIVES: Cardiac multidetector computed tomography (CMCT) has potential to be used as a screening test for patients with acute chest pain, but several tools are already used to risk-stratify this population. Risk models exist that stratify need for intensive care (Goldman), short-term prognosis (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction, TIMI), and 1-year events (Sanchis). We applied these cardiovascular risk models to candidates for CMCT and assessed sensitivity for prediction of in-hospital acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that none of the models would achieve a sensitivity of 90% or greater, thereby justifying use of CMCT in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: We analyzed TIMI, Goldman, and Sanchis in 148 consecutive patients with chest pain, nondiagnostic electrocardiogram, and negative initial cardiac biomarkers who previously met inclusion and exclusion criteria for the Rule-Out Myocardial Infarction Using Coronary Artery Tomography Study. ACS was adjudicated, and risk scores were categorized based on established criteria. Risk score agreement was assessed with weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 17 (11%) of 148 patients had ACS. For all risk models, sensitivity was poor (range, 35%-53%), and 95% confidence intervals did not cross above 77%. Agreement to risk-classify patients was poor to moderate (weighted kappa range, 0.18-0.43). Patients categorized as "low risk" had nonzero rates of ACS using all 3 scoring models (range, 8%-9%). CONCLUSIONS: Available risk scores had poor sensitivity to detect ACS in patients with acute chest pain. Because of the small number of patients in this data set, these findings require confirmation in larger studies.
Authors: E M Antman; M Cohen; P J Bernink; C H McCabe; T Horacek; G Papuchis; B Mautner; R Corbalan; D Radley; E Braunwald Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Elliott M Antman; Charles R Bridges; Robert M Califf; Donald E Casey; William E Chavey; Francis M Fesmire; Judith S Hochman; Thomas N Levin; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; Pierre Theroux; Nanette Kass Wenger; R Scott Wright; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Jonathan L Halperin; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Charles V Pollack; Frank D Sites; Frances S Shofer; Keara L Sease; Judd E Hollander Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: James A Goldstein; Michael J Gallagher; William W O'Neill; Michael A Ross; Brian J O'Neil; Gilbert L Raff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; John T Nagurney; Fabian Moselewski; Antonio Pena; Maros Ferencik; Claudia U Chae; Ricardo C Cury; Javed Butler; Suhny Abbara; David F Brown; Alex Manini; John H Nichols; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L Goldman; M Weinberg; M Weisberg; R Olshen; E F Cook; R K Sargent; G A Lamas; C Dennis; C Wilson; L Deckelbaum; H Fineberg; R Stiratelli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1982-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maros Ferencik; Christopher L Schlett; Fabian Bamberg; Quynh A Truong; John H Nichols; Antonio J Pena; Michael D Shapiro; Ian S Rogers; Sujith Seneviratne; Blair Alden Parry; Ricardo C Cury; Thomas J Brady; David F Brown; John T Nagurney; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jonathan S Ilgen; Alex F Manini; Udo Hoffmann; Vicki E Noble; Ediza Giraldez; Supapan Nualpring; J Stephen Bohan Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2011-07-31
Authors: Nan Liu; Zhi Xiong Koh; Junyang Goh; Zhiping Lin; Benjamin Haaland; Boon Ping Ting; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Micah Liam Arthur Heldeweg; Nan Liu; Zhi Xiong Koh; Stephanie Fook-Chong; Weng Kit Lye; Mark Harms; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 9.097