Prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome:a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS. RESULTS: In total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR-0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)). DISCUSSION: Important study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome. FUNDING: This study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122).</p

Prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS. RESULTS: In total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR-0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)). DISCUSSION: Important study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome. FUNDING: This study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122)

External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS

Background: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin. Methods: Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). Conclusion: On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways

Prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention centre in suspected acute coronary syndrome

Objective: Prehospital risk stratification and triage are currently not performed in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This may lead to prolonged time to revascularisation, increased duration of hospital admission and higher healthcare costs. The preHEART score (prehospital history, ECG, age, risk factors and point-of-care troponin score) can be used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with NSTE-ACS. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre, based on the preHEART score, on time to final invasive diagnostics or culprit revascularisation. Methods: Prospective, multicentre, two-cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. The first cohort is observational (standard care), while the second (interventional) cohort includes patients who are stratified for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI centre based on their preHEART score. Risk stratification and triage are performed by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint of the study is time from first medical contact until final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation. Secondary endpoints are time from first medical contact until intracoronary angiography (ICA), duration of hospital admission, number of invasive diagnostics, number of inter-hospital transfers and major adverse cardiac events at 7 and 30 days.Results: A total of 1069 patients were included. In the interventional cohort (n=577), time between final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation (42 (17-101) hours vs 20 (5-44) hours, p&amp; lt;0.001) and length of hospital admission (3 (2-5) days vs 2 (1-4) days, p=0.007) were shorter than in the observational cohort (n=492). In patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation, healthcare costs were reduced in the interventional cohort (&amp; euro;5599 (2978-9625) vs &amp; euro;4899 (2278-5947), p=0.02).Conclusion: Prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI centre, based on the preHEART score, reduces time from first medical contact to final invasive diagnostics and revascularisation, reduces duration of hospital admission and decreases healthcare costs in patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation. Trial registration: NCT05243485. &amp; copy; Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</p