ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Modified HEART score to improve ruling out acute coronary syndrome at the emergency department.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeyond high-sensitivity troponin (hs-Tn) testing, risk scores are recommended (e.g. HEART score) to identify patients which could be safely discharged from ED. A modified and simplified version of HEART score (mHEART score) has been developed for the same goal.
objectiveWe aimed to prospectively validate the mHEART score and compared its performance with that of two other commonly used scores, GRACE and classic HEART scores.
methodsProspective observational study carried out from November 2019 to November 2020. Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ED of University Hospital of Bologna for non-traumatic chest pain were enrolled. For each enrolled patient GRACE, classic HEART and mHEART scores were calculated. The main outcome was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events and overall mortality over 90 days (MACE).
resultsThe mHEART score had higher AUC (0.891) as compared to classic HEART (0.884) and GRACE (AUC 0.804) scores (p < 0.001). The classic HEART score identified 48% patients at low risk, mHEART score 51% and GRACE 63%. The cumulative MACE incidence in these groups were 1.0%, 1.0% and 6.1%, respectively. The modified and classic HEART scores showed the highest negative predictive value (99%). If combined with multiple hs-Tn testing, when appropriated according to the guidelines, the mHEART allowed to identify half of the population (49.8%) that could have been discharged with a MACE miss-rate of 0.5%.
conclusionsmHEART score showed the best performance for ruling out ACS among patients with chest-pain presenting in the ED. Integration of this score with current hs-Tn algorithm might enhance management of patients with chest-pain in ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42251624What 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.