William E Soares1, Alex Knee2, Seth R Gemme3, Ruth Hambrecht4, Stacy Dybas5, Kye E Poronsky3, Shelby C Mader3, Timothy J Mader5. 1. Institute of Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School‒Baystate, Springfield, MA. Electronic address: william.soaresmd@baystatehealth.org. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School‒Baystate, Springfield, MA; Epidemiology/Biostatistics Research Core, Office of Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School‒Baystate, Springfield, MA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Advent Health, Tampa, FL. 5. Institute of Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School‒Baystate, Springfield, MA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.
Authors: Russell V Luepker; Fred S Apple; Robert H Christenson; Richard S Crow; Stephen P Fortmann; David Goff; Robert J Goldberg; Mary M Hand; Allan S Jaffe; Desmond G Julian; Daniel Levy; Teri Manolio; Shanthi Mendis; George Mensah; Andrzej Pajak; Ronald J Prineas; K Srinath Reddy; Veronique L Roger; Wayne D Rosamond; Eyal Shahar; A Richey Sharrett; Paul Sorlie; Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Jacob Six; Louise Cullen; Barbra E Backus; Jaimi Greenslade; William Parsonage; Sally Aldous; Pieter A Doevendans; Martin Than Journal: Crit Pathw Cardiol Date: 2013-09
Authors: B E Backus; A J Six; J C Kelder; M A R Bosschaert; E G Mast; A Mosterd; R F Veldkamp; A J Wardeh; R Tio; R Braam; S H J Monnink; R van Tooren; T P Mast; F van den Akker; M J M Cramer; J M Poldervaart; A W Hoes; P A Doevendans Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Joshua James Oliver; Matthew Jay Streitz; Jessica Marie Hyams; Richard Michael Wood; Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Maksimenko; Brit Long; Robert Michael Barnwell; Michael David April Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Simon A Mahler; Robert F Riley; Gregory B Russell; Brian C Hiestand; James W Hoekstra; Cedric W Lefebvre; Bret A Nicks; David M Cline; Kim L Askew; John Bringolf; Stephanie B Elliott; David M Herrington; Gregory L Burke; Chadwick D Miller Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Michael B Weinstock; Scott Weingart; Frank Orth; Douglas VanFossen; Colin Kaide; Judy Anderson; David H Newman Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christian A Tomaszewski; David Nestler; Kaushal H Shah; Amita Sudhir; Michael D Brown Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Boyang Tom Jin; Raj Palleti; Siyu Shi; Andrew Y Ng; James V Quinn; Pranav Rajpurkar; David Kim Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Alec J Pawlukiewicz; Matthew R Geringer; W Tyler Davis; Daniel R Nassery; Michael D April; Matthew J Streitz; Jessica M Hyams; Alex W Martin; Sadie A Martin; Joshua J Oliver Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-04-29