Dustin G Mark1, Jie Huang2, Uli Chettipally3, Mamata V Kene4, Megan L Anderson5, Erik P Hess6, Dustin W Ballard7, David R Vinson8, Mary E Reed2. 1. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Departments of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California. Electronic address: Dustin.G.Mark@kp.org. 2. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, South San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, San Leandro, California. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Sacramento, California. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, San Rafael, California. 8. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Sacramento, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both the modified History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) score and the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at low risk (<1%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the comparative accuracy of the EDACS (original and simplified) and modified HEART risk scores when using cardiac troponin I (cTnI) cutoffs below the 99th percentile, and obtain precise MACE risk estimates. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective study of adult emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for possible ACS in an integrated health care system between 2013 and 2015. Negative predictive values for MACE (composite of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and all-cause mortality) were determined at 60 days. Reclassification analyses were used to assess the comparative accuracy of risk scores and lower cTnI cutoffs. RESULTS: A total of 118,822 patients with possible ACS were included. The 3 risk scores' accuracies were optimized using the lower limit of cTnI quantitation (<0.02 ng/ml) to define low risk for 60-day MACE, with reclassification yields ranging between 3.4% and 3.9%, while maintaining similar negative predictive values (range 99.49% to 99.55%; p = 0.27). The original EDACS identified the largest proportion of patients as low risk (60.6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with possible ACS, the modified HEART score, original EDACS, and simplified EDACS all predicted a low risk of 60-day MACE with improved accuracy using a cTnI cutoff below the 99th percentile. The original EDACS identified the most low-risk patients, and thus may be the preferred risk score.
BACKGROUND: Both the modified History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) score and the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at low risk (<1%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the comparative accuracy of the EDACS (original and simplified) and modified HEART risk scores when using cardiac troponin I (cTnI) cutoffs below the 99th percentile, and obtain precise MACE risk estimates. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective study of adult emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for possible ACS in an integrated health care system between 2013 and 2015. Negative predictive values for MACE (composite of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and all-cause mortality) were determined at 60 days. Reclassification analyses were used to assess the comparative accuracy of risk scores and lower cTnI cutoffs. RESULTS: A total of 118,822 patients with possible ACS were included. The 3 risk scores' accuracies were optimized using the lower limit of cTnI quantitation (<0.02 ng/ml) to define low risk for 60-day MACE, with reclassification yields ranging between 3.4% and 3.9%, while maintaining similar negative predictive values (range 99.49% to 99.55%; p = 0.27). The original EDACS identified the largest proportion of patients as low risk (60.6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with possible ACS, the modified HEART score, original EDACS, and simplified EDACS all predicted a low risk of 60-day MACE with improved accuracy using a cTnI cutoff below the 99th percentile. The original EDACS identified the most low-risk patients, and thus may be the preferred risk score.
Authors: Laura E Simon; Adina S Rauchwerger; Uli K Chettipally; Leon Babakhanian; David R Vinson; E Margaret Warton; Mary E Reed; Anupam B Kharbanda; Elyse O Kharbanda; Dustin W Ballard Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adam L Sharp; Aileen S Baecker; Ernest Shen; Rita Redberg; Ming-Sum Lee; Maros Ferencik; Shaw Natsui; Chengyi Zheng; Aniket Kawatkar; Michael K Gould; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Adam L Sharp; Yi-Lin Wu; Ernest Shen; Rita Redberg; Ming-Sum Lee; Maros Ferencik; Shaw Natsui; Chengyi Zheng; Aniket Kawatkar; Michael K Gould; Benjamin C Sun Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jason Stopyra; Anna Catherine Snavely; Brian Hiestand; Brian J Wells; Kristin Macfarlane Lenoir; David Herrington; Nella Hendley; Nicklaus P Ashburn; Chadwick D Miller; Simon A Mahler Journal: Heart Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Anna C Snavely; Nella Hendley; Jason P Stopyra; Kristin M Lenoir; Brian J Wells; David M Herrington; Brian C Hiestand; Chadwick D Miller; Simon A Mahler Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Ken Monahan; Margaret Pan; Chinonso Opara; Maame Yaa A B Yiadom; Daniel Munoz; Benjamin B Holmes; Davis Stephen; Kristopher J Swiger; Sean P Collins Journal: Clin Exp Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-12
Authors: Dustin G Mark; Jie Huang; Dustin W Ballard; Mamata V Kene; Dana R Sax; Uli K Chettipally; James S Lin; Sean C Bouvet; Dale M Cotton; Megan L Anderson; Ian D McLachlan; Laura E Simon; Judy Shan; Adina S Rauchwerger; David R Vinson; Mary E Reed Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Maereg Wassie; Ming-Sum Lee; Benjamin C Sun; Yi-Lin Wu; Aileen S Baecker; Rita F Redberg; Maros Ferencik; Ernest Shen; Visanee Musigdilok; Adam L Sharp Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01