From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University, Faculty of Medicine, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2020 Jun;19(2):62-68. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000213.
The HEART score is a clinical decision support tool for physicians to stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting with chest pain at the emergency department. The score includes 5 elements, including troponin level. Our aim was to compare safety and efficiency of the HEART scores calculated by using the first representative troponin (ie, based on time since symptom onset) compared to the original HEART score, where calculation was based on the first available troponin measurement, irrespective of duration of symptoms.
We performed a secondary analysis on patients from the HEART-impact trial (2013-2014, the Netherlands). Two HEART scores were calculated for all patients: a HEART score with a T (troponin) element score based on the first available troponin (HEART-first) and 1 with a T element score based on the first representative troponin (ie, at least 3 hours after symptom onset; HEART-representative). We compared all patients' scores and risk categories between HEART-first and HEART-representative. Furthermore, we compared safety (proportion of patients with MACE receiving a low score) and efficiency (proportion of patients with a low score) between HEART-first and HEART-representative.
We included 1222 patients. In 882 (72%) patients, the first troponin was representative, resulting in the same HEART-first and HEART-representative score. In the remaining 340 patients the use of HEART-representative led to a different score than HEART-first in 43 patients (3.5%). Out of the 222 patients with MACE, 11 patients (5.0%) received a low score by using HEART-first compared with 10 patients (4.5%) when using HEART-representative (P = 0.83). The number of patients with a low score was similar (P = 0.93) when using the HEART-first (464/1222; 38%) or HEART-representative score (462/1222; 38%).
Using a representative troponin measurement changed the value of the HEART score in only 3.5% of patients and had no impact on safety and efficiency of the HEART score. These results suggest there is no need to wait for a representative troponin measurement and should encourage physicians to adhere to the original HEART score guidelines.
HEART 评分是一种临床决策支持工具,用于对急诊科胸痛患者进行主要不良心脏事件(MACE)风险分层。该评分包括 5 个要素,包括肌钙蛋白水平。我们的目的是比较基于首次代表性肌钙蛋白(即根据症状发作后的时间)计算的 HEART 评分与原始 HEART 评分的安全性和效率,其中原始 HEART 评分的计算基于首次获得的肌钙蛋白测量值,而不论症状持续时间如何。
我们对 HEART-impact 试验(2013-2014 年,荷兰)中的患者进行了二次分析。为所有患者计算了两种 HEART 评分:一种是基于首次获得的肌钙蛋白的 HEART 评分(HEART-first),另一种是基于首次代表性肌钙蛋白的 T(肌钙蛋白)元素评分(即症状发作后至少 3 小时;HEART-representative)。我们比较了 HEART-first 和 HEART-representative 之间所有患者的评分和风险类别。此外,我们比较了 HEART-first 和 HEART-representative 之间的安全性(接受低评分的 MACE 患者比例)和效率(低评分患者比例)。
我们纳入了 1222 名患者。在 882 名(72%)患者中,首次肌钙蛋白具有代表性,导致 HEART-first 和 HEART-representative 评分相同。在其余 340 名患者中,使用 HEART-representative 导致 43 名患者(3.5%)的评分与 HEART-first 不同。在 222 名 MACE 患者中,11 名患者(5.0%)使用 HEART-first 时获得低评分,而 10 名患者(4.5%)使用 HEART-representative 时获得低评分(P=0.83)。使用 HEART-first(464/1222;38%)或 HEART-representative 评分(462/1222;38%)时,获得低评分的患者数量相似(P=0.93)。
仅在 3.5%的患者中,使用代表性肌钙蛋白测量值改变了 HEART 评分的价值,且对 HEART 评分的安全性和效率没有影响。这些结果表明,不需要等待代表性肌钙蛋白测量值,应鼓励医生遵守原始 HEART 评分指南。