The HEART score in predicting major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department with possible acute coronary syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a common, sometimes difficult to diagnose spectrum of diseases occurring after abrupt reduction in blood flow through a coronary artery. Given the diagnostic challenge, it is sensible for emergency physicians to have an approach to prognosticate patients with possible ACS. Multiple prediction models have been developed to help identify patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes. The HEART score is the first model to be derived, validated, and undergo clinical impact studies in emergency department (ED) patients with possible ACS. Objective To develop a protocol for a prognostic systematic review of the literature evaluating the HEART score as a predictor of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting to the ED with possible ACS. Methods/design This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and is registered on PROSPERO. All methodological tools to be used are endorsed by the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group. Pre-defined eligibility criteria are provided. Multiple strategies will be used to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies will be selected and data extracted using standardised forms based on the CHARMS checklist. The QUIPS tool will be used to assess the risk of bias within individual studies. Outcome measures will include prevalence, risk ratio, and absolute risk reduction for MACE within 6 weeks of ED evaluation, comparing HEART scores 0–3 versus 4–10. HEART score prognostic performance will be evaluated with the concordance (C) statistic (model discrimination), observed to expected events ratio (model calibration), and a decision curve analysis. Reporting biases and methodological, clinical, and statistical heterogeneity will be scrutinised. Unless deemed inappropriate, a meta-analysis and pre-defined subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Overall judgements about evidence quality and strength of recommendations will be summarised using the GRADE approach. Discussion This review will identify, select, and appraise studies evaluating the prognostic performance of the HEART score, producing results of interest to emergency physicians. These results may encourage shared clinical decision-making in the ED by facilitating risk communication with patients and health care providers. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017084400

Basic certification process for point-of care-ultrasound in emergency medicine: an European perspective

International audienc

Prognostic Factors in Chest Pain Patients : A Quantitative Analysis of the HEART Score

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification for chest pain patients at the emergency department is recommended in several guidelines. The history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score is based on medical literature and expert opinion to estimate the risk of a major adverse cardiac event. We aimed to assess the predictive effects of the 5 HEART components and to compare performances of the original HEART score and a model based on regression analysis. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from 2388 patients, of whom 407 (17%) had a major adverse cardiac event within 6 weeks (acute myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, significant stenosis with conservative treatment and death due to any cause). RESULTS: Univariate regression analysis showed the same ordering of predictive effects as used in the HEART score. Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis, an adjusted score showed slightly better calibration and discrimination (c statistic HEART, 0.83, HEART-adj, 0.85). In comparison to HEART, HEART-adj proved in a decision curve analysis clinically useful for decision thresholds over 25%. Nevertheless, the original HEART classified patients better than HEART-adj (net reclassification improvement = 14.1%). CONCLUSION: The previously chosen weights of the 5 elements of the HEART score are supported by multivariable statistical analyses, although some improvement in calibration and discrimination is possible by adapting the score. The gain in clinical usefulness is relatively small and supports the use of either the original or adjusted HEART score in daily practice