Department of Emergency Medicine Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center Oakland CA.
Department of Critical Care Medicine Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center Oakland CA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Apr 6;10(7):e020082. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020082. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, <0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.
对于胸痛的急诊科患者,推荐进行冠状动脉风险分层。许多方案设计为“排除”二元分类策略,而其他方案则采用分级风险分层。不同风险容忍度下竞争方法的比较性能尚未广泛报道。
这是一项前瞻性队列研究,纳入了 2018 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间在一个综合医疗服务系统内的 13 个医疗中心急诊科就诊的成年胸痛患者。通过电子临床决策支持界面,我们对几种冠状动脉风险评分(病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素和肌钙蛋白[HEART]评分、HEART 路径、胸痛评分加速诊断方案)、肌钙蛋白单策略(第四代检测)、非结构化医生推测和一种新的风险算法(RISTRA-ACS)进行了外部验证和评估(净获益,在不同的风险阈值下)。主要结局是 60 天主要不良心脏事件,定义为心肌梗死、心脏骤停、心源性休克、冠状动脉血运重建或全因死亡率。共有 13 192 例患者就诊,60 天主要不良心脏事件发生率为 3.7%。RISTRA-ACS 和 HEART 路径的阴性似然比最低(0.06,95%CI,0.03-0.10 和 0.07,95%CI,0.04-0.11),在一系列低风险阈值下具有最大的净获益。RISTRA-ACS 在 60 天主要不良心脏事件方面具有最高的区分度(接受者操作特征曲线下面积 0.92,95%CI,0.91-0.94,<0.0001)。
RISTRA-ACS 和 HEART 路径是最佳的排除方法,而 RISTRA-ACS 是最佳的分级风险方法。RISTRA-ACS 有望成为一种用于急诊科冠状动脉风险分层的多功能单一方法。