1 Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
2 The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018 Mar;7(2):111-119. doi: 10.1177/2048872617710788. Epub 2017 May 23.
The objective of this systematic review was to summarise the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of the HEART score for predicting major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain to the emergency department.
Two investigators independently searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases between 2008 and May 2016 identifying eligible studies providing diagnostic accuracy data on the HEART score for predicting major adverse cardiac events as the primary outcome. For the 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria, study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy measures were systematically extracted and study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. After quality assessment, nine studies including data from 11,217 patients were combined in the meta-analysis applying a generalised linear mixed model approach with random effects assumption (Stata 13.1). In total, 15.4% of patients (range 7.3-29.1%) developed major adverse cardiac events after a mean of 6 weeks' follow-up. Among patients categorised as 'low risk' and suitable for early discharge (HEART score 0-3), the pooled incidence of 'missed' major adverse cardiac events was 1.6%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the HEART score for predicting major adverse cardiac events were 96.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.0-98.2%) and 47.0% (95% CI 41.0-53.5%), respectively.
Patients with a HEART score of 0-3 are at low risk of incident major adverse cardiac events. As 3.3% of patients with major adverse cardiac events are 'missed' by the HEART score, clinicians must ask whether this risk is acceptably low for clinical implementation.
本系统评价的目的是总结目前有关 HEART 评分预测急诊科就诊的不明原因胸痛患者发生主要不良心脏事件的诊断准确性的证据。
两位研究者独立检索了 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库,时间范围为 2008 年至 2016 年 5 月,以确定提供有关 HEART 评分预测主要不良心脏事件的诊断准确性数据的合格研究,主要结局为主要不良心脏事件。对于符合纳入标准的 12 项研究,系统地提取了研究特征和诊断准确性测量值,并使用 QUADAS-2 工具评估了研究质量。经过质量评估,9 项研究(包括 11217 例患者的数据)被合并到 meta 分析中,采用具有随机效应假设的广义线性混合模型方法(Stata 13.1)。总的来说,15.4%的患者(范围为 7.3%-29.1%)在平均 6 周的随访后发生了主要不良心脏事件。在被归类为“低危”且适合早期出院(HEART 评分 0-3)的患者中,“漏诊”的主要不良心脏事件的发生率为 1.6%。HEART 评分预测主要不良心脏事件的敏感性和特异性分别为 96.7%(95%置信区间为 94.0%-98.2%)和 47.0%(95%置信区间为 41.0%-53.5%)。
HEART 评分 0-3 的患者发生主要不良心脏事件的风险较低。由于 3.3%的主要不良心脏事件患者被 HEART 评分“漏诊”,临床医生必须考虑这种风险是否可以接受,以用于临床实施。