ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2020
Risk stratification of patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents in the emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Symptomology, Outcomes and Risk Factors of Acute Coronary Syndrome Presentations without Cardiac Chest Pain: A Scoping Review.European cardiology · 2024Article
- Position Statement on Ischemic Heart Disease - Women-Centered Health Care - 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Article
- A highly predictive cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) risk score for 90-day and one-year major adverse cardiac events and revascularization.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- HEART versus GRACE Score in Predicting the Outcomes of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Review
- A Closer Look at the HEART Score.Cardiology research · 2022Review
- Use of Coronary CT Angiography to Predict Obstructive Lesions in Patients with Chest Pain without Enzyme and ST-Segment Elevation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Modification of the HEART pathway by adding coronary computed tomography angiography for patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- A New Risk Score for Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Normal High Sensitivity Troponin.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- The HEART score as a prognostic tool for revascularization: comment.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Comparison of HEART, TIMI and GRACE Scores for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in the Era of High-Sensitivity Assay for Troponin I.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We studied whether previously developed cardiac risk scores-including history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART); Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI); Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE); and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain (EDACS)-could be applied to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with possible coronary artery disease, including anginal equivalents. Patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents who underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography were included. The primary outcome was 30-day MACE. We compared the cardiac risk scores by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). The primary outcome occurred in 200 patients (16.0%) of the 1247 patients included. For the prediction of MACE, the AUC of the HEART score (0.765) was superior to those of the TIMI (0.726), GRACE (0.612), and EDACS (0.631) scores. Among patients identified by each score as being at low risk, the MACE rate was the lowest for the HEART score (5.7%), followed by the TIMI (8.8%), EDACS (11.2%), and GRACE (12.2%) scores. At a sensitivity level of a < 2% rate of misses, the negative predictive value of the HEART score (1.0) outperformed those of the GRACE (0.932) and EDACS (0.964). The HEART score appeared to be more predictive of MACEs than the TIMI, GRACE, and EDACS in patients with chest pain or anginal equivalents. However, previously suggested cutoff could not safely identify low-risk patients for early discharge because of the unacceptably high rate of missed MACEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.