Prognosticating Clinical Prediction Scores Without Clinical Gestalt for Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

Publication date: Available online 27 November 2017
Source:The Journal of Emergency Medicine
Author(s): Chin Pang Wong, Chun Tat Lui, Jonathan Gabriel Sung, Ho Lam, Hin Tat Fung, Ping Wa Yam
BackgroundAssessment of patients with chest pain is a regular challenge in the emergency department (ED). Recent guidelines recommended quantitative assessment of ischemic risk by means of risk scores.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess the performance of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI); Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE); history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) scores; and the North America Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) without components of clinical gestalt in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE).MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study in adult patients who attended the ED with undifferentiated chest pain. Clinical prediction rules were applied and calculated. The clinical prediction rules were modified from the original ones, excluding components requiring judgment by clinical gestalt. The primary outcome was MACE. Performance of the tests were evaluated by receive operating characteristic curves and the area under curves (AUC).ResultsThere were 1081 patients included in the study. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 164 (15.2%) patients. The AUC of the GRACE score was 0.756, which was inferior to the TIMI score (AUC 0.809) and the HEART score (AUC 0.845). A TIMI score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 45.7%. A GRACE score ≥ 50 had a sensitivity of 99.4% and a specificity of 7.5%. A HEART score ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 98.8% and a specificity of 11.7%. The NACPR had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 51.5%.ConclusionsWithout clinical gestalt, the modified HEART score had the best discriminative capacity in predicting 30-day MACE.



http://ift.tt/2zyhHgM