ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of HEAR and HEART Scores for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of patients with low and high risk for acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED) is important for process management and proper resource use. The aim of this study was to compare the HEAR and HEART scores to determine the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over 30 days.
methodsDemographic data and clinical evaluations of the patients who presented to the ED with chest pain were recorded. ECGs were evaluated without knowing the clinical status of the patients. The HEART (including history, ECG, age, coronary risk factors, and troponin level) and HEAR (including four items with no troponin) risk scores were calculated. MACE was defined as all MI, all coronary revascularization procedures (PCI and CABG), all-cause death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias within 30 days. Patients with MACE were evaluated as Group 1, and patients without MACE were considered as Group 2, and the data from the two groups were compared.
resultsA total of 230 patients were included in the study. There were 56 (24.3%) patients with MACEs. According to the ROC analysis, the threshold value was determined as ≤3 for both scoring systems. According to this threshold value, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 0.77 and 0.78 for the HEAR score and 0.82 and 0.77 for the HEART score.
conclusionsAlthough the HEAR and HEART scoring systems are useful for the management of patients with chest pain in the ED, the HEART score was evaluated to be more effective.
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.