ArticleCJEM2022
External validation of a low HEAR score to identify emergency department chest pain patients at very low risk of major adverse cardiac events without troponin testing.
Article in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the new HEAR score identifying patients with low risk of acute coronary syndrome without troponin testing.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Integration of focused cardiac ultrasound in the HEAR and HEART scores in emergency department patients with chest pain.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Pre-Hospital Artificial Intelligence-Guided, Focused Echocardiography in Patients with Acute Chest Pain for Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment and Application of the Hear Score in Remote Emergency Medicine Outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Article
- HEAR SCORE: A Proposal to Use Only Anamnestic and EKG Data to Evaluate Patients with Very Low Risk Chest Pain.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2023Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe history, ECG, age, risk factor (HEAR) score has been proposed to identify patients at sufficiently low risk of acute coronary syndrome that they may not require troponin testing. The objective of this study was to externally validate a low HEAR score to identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain at very low risk of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of patients requiring troponin testing to rule out myocardial infarction (MI) in a large urban ED. HEAR scores were calculated in two cohorts: (1) patients with no known history of coronary artery disease (CAD); and (2) all eligible patients. The proportion of patients classified as very low risk, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios at each cut-off were quantified for index acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 30-day MACE at HEAR = 0 and HEAR ≤ 1 thresholds.
resultsOf the 1150 patients included in this study, 820 (71.3%) had no history of CAD, 97 (8.4%) had index AMI and 123 (10.7%) had 30-day MACE. In patients with no prior history of CAD, HEAR ≤ 1 identified 202 (24.6%) of patients as very low risk for 30-day MACE with 98.4% (95% CI 91.6-99.9%) sensitivity. Among all patients, HEAR ≤ 1 identified 202 (17.6%) patients as very low risk for 30-day MACE with 99.2% (95% CI 95.6-99.9%) sensitivity.
conclusionsA HEAR score ≤ 1 can identify more than 17% of all patients as very low risk for index AMI and 30-day MACE and unlikely to benefit from troponin testing. Broad implementation of this strategy could lead to significant resource savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34273102What 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.