Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain

Dustin G Mark, Jie Huang, Mamata V Kene, Dana R Sax, Dale M Cotton, James S Lin, Sean C Bouvet, Uli K Chettipally, Megan L Anderson, Ian D McLachlan, Laura E Simon, Judy Shan, Adina S Rauchwerger, David R Vinson, Dustin W Ballard, Mary E Reed, Kaiser Permanente CREST Network Investigators, Dustin G Mark, Jie Huang, Mamata V Kene, Dana R Sax, Dale M Cotton, James S Lin, Sean C Bouvet, Uli K Chettipally, Megan L Anderson, Ian D McLachlan, Laura E Simon, Judy Shan, Adina S Rauchwerger, David R Vinson, Dustin W Ballard, Mary E Reed, Kaiser Permanente CREST Network Investigators

Abstract

Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, P<0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; emergency department; risk score.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Figure 1. RISTRA‐ACS algorithm.
Figure 1. RISTRA‐ACS algorithm.
Upon data entry into the electronic clinical decision support interface (RISTRA), risk estimation begins with calculation of both the HEART score and the EDACS (green boxes). Subsequent risk adjustment is based on the peak troponin value (purple boxes) obtained at least 3 hours from symptom onset (if both HEART and EDACS scores indicate low risk) or at least 4.5 hours from pain onset (if either HEART or EDACS scores indicate non‐low risk). A minimum risk override was implemented in the presence of crescendo angina (yellow box, minimal risk 3%) or new ischemic ECG changes (>7% risk), with higher risk assignment allowed if criteria were present. Risk estimates were presented to the clinician following completion of data entry and troponin testing completion, indicated by either a stable or decreasing troponin value on repeated measures at least 2 hours apart or a single measure below the LOQ at or beyond the above specified time from pain onset. EDACS indicates Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score; HEART, History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; LOQ, limit of quantitation; MACE, major adverse cardiac event at 60 days; RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome; and TnI, troponin I.
Figure 2. Study cohort flow chart.
Figure 2. Study cohort flow chart.
eCDS indicates electronic clinical decision support; ED, emergency department; KPNC, Kaiser Permanente Northern California; MACE, major adverse cardiac event; RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome; and STEMI, ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction.
Figure 3. Smoothed calibration plot comparing graded‐risk…
Figure 3. Smoothed calibration plot comparing graded‐risk approaches for the primary outcome of 60‐day MACE.
Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). Calibration was determined using a random split of the study cohort into equal portions to generate sample 1 (testing data set) and sample 2 (validation data set). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Figure 4. Smoothed calibration plot comparing graded‐risk…
Figure 4. Smoothed calibration plot comparing graded‐risk approaches for the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.
Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). Calibration was determined using a random split of the study cohort into equal portions to generate sample 1 (testing data set) and sample 2 (validation data set). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE‐CR, major adverse cardiac events minus coronary revascularization; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Figure 5. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches…
Figure 5. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches and 60‐day MACE at (A) the observed MACE prevalence of 3.7% and (B) a theoretical MACE prevalence of 10%.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 2% to represent a range of low‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) troponin below the level of quantitation (Troponin), (2) Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS‐ADP low risk), (3) HEART score

Figure 6. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches…

Figure 6. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the primary outcome of 60‐day MACE.

The…

Figure 6. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the primary outcome of 60‐day MACE.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 10% to represent a range of low‐to‐moderate‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). The “test all” line represents an approach in which all patients undergo further testing (ie, a strategy with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Figure 7. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches…

Figure 7. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches and 60‐day MACE‐CR at ( A ) the…

Figure 7. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches and 60‐day MACE‐CR at (A) the observed MACE‐CR prevalence of 3.3% and (B) a theoretical MACE‐CR prevalence of 10%.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 2% to represent a range of low‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) troponin below the level of quantitation (Troponin), (2) Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS‐ADP low risk), (3) HEART score

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches…

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.

The…

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 10% to represent a range of low‐to‐moderate‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). The “test all” line represents an approach in which all patients undergo further testing (ie, a strategy with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE‐CR, major adverse cardiac events without revascularization; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.
All figures (8)
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Owens PL, Barrett ML, Gibson TB, Andrews RM, Weinick RM, Mutter RL. Emergency department care in the United States: a profile of national data sources. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:150–165. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.11.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hsia RY, Hale Z, Tabas JA. A national study of the prevalence of life‐threatening diagnoses in patients with chest pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1029–1032. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2498. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Venkatesh AK, Dai Y, Ross JS, Schuur JD, Capp R, Krumholz HM. Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition. Med Care. 2015;53:237–244. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000261. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sabbatini AK, Nallamothu BK, Kocher KE. Reducing variation in hospital admissions from the emergency department for low‐mortality conditions may produce savings. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1655–1663. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1318. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Amsterdam EA, Kirk JD, Bluemke DA, Diercks D, Farkouh ME, Garvey JL, Kontos MC, McCord J, Miller TD, Morise A, et al. Testing of low‐risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:1756–1776. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181ec61df. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Show all 70 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Related information
Full text links [x]
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 6. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches…
Figure 6. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the primary outcome of 60‐day MACE.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 10% to represent a range of low‐to‐moderate‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). The “test all” line represents an approach in which all patients undergo further testing (ie, a strategy with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Figure 7. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches…
Figure 7. Decision curves for rule‐out approaches and 60‐day MACE‐CR at (A) the observed MACE‐CR prevalence of 3.3% and (B) a theoretical MACE‐CR prevalence of 10%.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 2% to represent a range of low‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) troponin below the level of quantitation (Troponin), (2) Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS‐ADP low risk), (3) HEART score

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches…

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.

The…

Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 10% to represent a range of low‐to‐moderate‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). The “test all” line represents an approach in which all patients undergo further testing (ie, a strategy with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE‐CR, major adverse cardiac events without revascularization; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.
All figures (8)
Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches…
Figure 8. Decision curves for graded‐risk approaches and the secondary outcome of 60‐day MACE‐CR.
The horizontal axis is restricted to risk thresholds between 0% and 10% to represent a range of low‐to‐moderate‐risk definitions. Approaches are: (1) physician gestalt for acute coronary syndrome (Gestalt), (2) HEART score (HEART), (3) troponin strata (Troponin), and (4) RISTRA‐ACS (RISTRA). The “test all” line represents an approach in which all patients undergo further testing (ie, a strategy with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity). HEART indicates History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; MACE‐CR, major adverse cardiac events without revascularization; and RISTRA‐ACS, Risk Stratification–Acute Coronary Syndrome.

References

    1. Owens PL, Barrett ML, Gibson TB, Andrews RM, Weinick RM, Mutter RL. Emergency department care in the United States: a profile of national data sources. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:150–165. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.11.022.
    1. Hsia RY, Hale Z, Tabas JA. A national study of the prevalence of life‐threatening diagnoses in patients with chest pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1029–1032. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2498.
    1. Venkatesh AK, Dai Y, Ross JS, Schuur JD, Capp R, Krumholz HM. Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition. Med Care. 2015;53:237–244. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000261.
    1. Sabbatini AK, Nallamothu BK, Kocher KE. Reducing variation in hospital admissions from the emergency department for low‐mortality conditions may produce savings. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1655–1663. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1318.
    1. Amsterdam EA, Kirk JD, Bluemke DA, Diercks D, Farkouh ME, Garvey JL, Kontos MC, McCord J, Miller TD, Morise A, et al. Testing of low‐risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:1756–1776. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181ec61df.
    1. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR Jr, Jaffe AS, Jneid H, Kelly RF, Kontos MC, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:2354–2394. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000133.
    1. Napoli AM, Arrighi JA, Siket MS, Gibbs FJ. Physician discretion is safe and may lower stress test utilization in emergency department chest pain unit patients. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2012;11:26–31. DOI: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e3182457bee.
    1. Aldous S, Richards AM, Cullen L, Pickering JW, Than M. The incremental value of stress testing in patients with acute chest pain beyond serial cardiac troponin testing. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:319–324. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2015-204823.
    1. Hermann LK, Newman DH, Pleasant WA, Rojanasarntikul D, Lakoff D, Goldberg SA, Duvall WL, Henzlova MJ. Yield of routine provocative cardiac testing among patients in an emergency department‐based chest pain unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1128–1133. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.850.
    1. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Suspected Non STEACS , Tomaszewski CA, Nestler D, Shah KH, Sudhir A, Brown MD. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected non‐st‐elevation acute coronary syndromes. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72:e65–e106. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.07.045.
    1. Hollander JE, Than M, Mueller C. State‐of‐the‐art evaluation of emergency department patients presenting with potential acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2016;134:547–564. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021886.
    1. Kline JA, Stubblefield WB. Clinician gestalt estimate of pretest probability for acute coronary syndrome and pulmonary embolism in patients with chest pain and dyspnea. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;63:275–280. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.08.023.
    1. Body R, Cook G, Burrows G, Carley S, Lewis PS. Can emergency physicians 'rule in' and 'rule out' acute myocardial infarction with clinical judgement? Emerg Med J. 2014;31:872–876. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2014-203832.
    1. Than M, Flaws D, Sanders S, Doust J, Glasziou P, Kline J, Aldous S, Troughton R, Reid C, Parsonage WA, et al. Development and validation of the emergency department assessment of chest pain score and 2 h accelerated diagnostic protocol. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26:34–44. DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.12164.
    1. Than MP, Pickering JW, Aldous SJ, Cullen L, Frampton CM, Peacock WF, Jaffe AS, Goodacre SW, Richards AM, Ardagh MW, et al. Effectiveness of EDACS versus ADAPT accelerated diagnostic pathways for chest pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial embedded within practice. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68:93–102.e101. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.01.001.
    1. Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC, Russell GB, Hoekstra JW, Lefebvre CW, Nicks BA, Cline DM, Askew KL, Elliott SB, et al. The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:195–203. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001384.
    1. Greenslade JH, Carlton EW, Van Hise C, Cho E, Hawkins T, Parsonage WA, Tate J, Ungerer J, Cullen L. Diagnostic accuracy of a new high‐sensitivity troponin i assay and five accelerated diagnostic pathways for ruling out acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71:439–451.e433. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.10.030.
    1. Stopyra J, Snavely AC, Hiestand B, Wells BJ, Lenoir KM, Herrington D, Hendley N, Ashburn NP, Miller CD, Mahler SA. Comparison of accelerated diagnostic pathways for acute chest pain risk stratification. Heart. 2020;106:977–984. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-316426.
    1. Mark DG, Huang J, Kennedy CJ, Vinson DR, Ballard DW, Reed ME; Kaiser Permanente CNI . 60‐day major adverse cardiac events in emergency department patients with non‐low modified heart scores. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38:2760.e5–2760.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.081.
    1. Baugh CW, Greenberg JO, Mahler SA, Kosowsky JM, Schuur JD, Parmar S, Ciociolo GR Jr, Carr CW, Ghazinouri R, Scirica BM. Implementation of a risk stratification and management pathway for acute chest pain in the emergency department. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2016;15:131–137. DOI: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000095.
    1. Mark DG, Huang J, Chettipally U, Kene MV, Anderson ML, Hess EP, Ballard DW, Vinson DR, Reed ME; Kaiser Permanente CNI . Performance of coronary risk scores among patients with chest pain in the emergency department. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:606–616. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.064.
    1. Vinson DR, Mark DG, Chettipally UK, Huang J, Rauchwerger AS, Reed ME, Lin JS, Kene MV, Wang DH, Sax DR, et al. Increasing safe outpatient management of emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism: a controlled pragmatic trial. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:855–865. DOI: 10.7326/M18-1206.
    1. Ekstrom HL, Kharbanda EO, Ballard DW, Vinson DR, Vazquez‐Benitez G, Chettipally UK, Dehmer SP, Kunisetty G, Sharma R, Rauchwerger AS, et al. Development of a clinical decision support system for pediatric abdominal pain in emergency department settings across two health systems within the HCSRN. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2019;7:15. DOI: 10.5334/egems.282.
    1. Simon LE, Rauchwerger AS, Chettipally UK, Babakhanian L, Vinson DR, Warton EM, Reed ME, Kharbanda AB, Kharbanda EO, Ballard DW. Text message alerts to emergency physicians identifying potential study candidates increase clinical trial enrollment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26:1360–1363. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocz118.
    1. Venge P, Lagerqvist B, Diderholm E, Lindahl B, Wallentin L. Clinical performance of three cardiac troponin assays in patients with unstable coronary artery disease (a FRISC II substudy). Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:1035–1041. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02271-3.
    1. Mahler SA, Lenoir KM, Wells BJ, Burke GL, Duncan PW, Case LD, Herrington DM, Diaz‐Garelli J‐F, Futrell WM, Hiestand BC, et al. Safely identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circulation. 2018;138:2456–2468. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036528.
    1. Storrow AB, Christenson RH, Nowak RM, Diercks DB, Singer AJ, Wu AHB, Kulstad E, LoVecchio F, Fromm C, Headden G, et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac troponin I for early rule‐in and rule‐out of acute myocardial infarction: results of a prospective multicenter trial. Clin Biochem. 2015;48:254–259. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.08.018.
    1. Keller T, Zeller T, Ojeda F, Tzikas S, Lillpopp L, Sinning C, Wild P, Genth‐Zotz S, Warnholtz A, Giannitsis E, et al. Serial changes in highly sensitive troponin I assay and early diagnosis of myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2011;306:2684–2693. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1896.
    1. Derington CG, Heath LJ, Kao DP, Delate T. Validation of algorithms to identify elective percutaneous coronary interventions in administrative databases. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0231100. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231100.
    1. Cullen L, Than M, Brown AF, Richards M, Parsonage W, Flaws D, Hollander JE, Christenson RH, Kline JA, Goodacre S, et al. Comprehensive standardized data definitions for acute coronary syndrome research in emergency departments in Australasia. Emerg Med Australas. 2010;22:35–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01256.x.
    1. Van Den Berg P, Body R. The HEART score for early rule out of acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7:111–119. DOI: 10.1177/2048872617710788.
    1. Storrow AB, Nowak RM, Diercks DB, Singer AJ, Wu AHB, Kulstad E, LoVecchio F, Fromm C, Headden G, Potis T, et al. Absolute and relative changes (delta) in troponin I for early diagnosis of myocardial infarction: results of a prospective multicenter trial. Clin Biochem. 2015;48:260–267. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.09.012.
    1. Willeit P, Welsh P, Evans JDW, Tschiderer L, Boachie C, Jukema JW, Ford I, Trompet S, Stott DJ, Kearney PM, et al. High‐sensitivity cardiac troponin concentration and risk of first‐ever cardiovascular outcomes in 154,052 participants. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:558–568. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.062.
    1. Roos A, Bandstein N, Lundback M, Hammarsten O, Ljung R, Holzmann MJ. Stable high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels and outcomes in patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2226–2236. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.064.
    1. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, Bosschaert M, Mast EG, Mosterd A, Veldkamp RF, Wardeh AJ, Tio R, Braam R, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:2153–2158. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.255.
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, Pencina MJ, Kattan MW. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21:128–138. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2.
    1. Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW; Topic Group 'Evaluating diagnostic t, prediction models' of the Si . Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019;17:230. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7.
    1. Vickers AJ, Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW. Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests. BMJ. 2016;352:i6. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6.
    1. Kerr KF, Wang Z, Janes H, McClelland RL, Psaty BM, Pepe MS. Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review. Epidemiology. 2014;25:114–121. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000018.
    1. Pepe MS, Fan J, Feng Z, Gerds T, Hilden J. The net reclassification index (NRI): a misleading measure of prediction improvement even with independent test data sets. Stat Biosci. 2015;7:282–295. DOI: 10.1007/s12561-014-9118-0.
    1. Kerr KF, Brown MD, Zhu K, Janes H. Assessing the clinical impact of risk prediction models with decision curves: guidance for correct interpretation and appropriate use. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2534–2540. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.5654.
    1. Hess EP, Brison RJ, Perry JJ, Calder LA, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Agarwal D, Sadosty AT, Silvilotti MLA, Jaffe AS, Montori VM, et al. Development of a clinical prediction rule for 30‐day cardiac events in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59:115–125.e111. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.026.
    1. Kline JA, Johnson CL, Pollack CV Jr, Diercks DB, Hollander JE, Newgard CD, Garvey JL. Pretest probability assessment derived from attribute matching. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:26. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-5-26.
    1. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1109–1117. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198005153022003.
    1. Goodacre S, Thokala P, Carroll C, Stevens JW, Leaviss J, Al Khalaf M, Collinson P, Morris F, Evans P, Wang J. Systematic review, meta‐analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coronary syndrome. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:v–vi, 1–188. DOI: 10.3310/hta17010.
    1. Reinhardt SW, Lin CJ, Novak E, Brown DL. Noninvasive cardiac testing vs clinical evaluation alone in acute chest pain: a secondary analysis of the ROMICAT‐II randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:212–219. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7360.
    1. Kawatkar AA, Sharp AL, Baecker AS, Natsui S, Redberg RF, Lee M‐S, Ferencik M, Wu Y‐L, Shen E, Zheng C, et al. Early noninvasive cardiac testing after emergency department evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:1621. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4325.
    1. Hulten E, Pickett C, Bittencourt MS, Villines TC, Petrillo S, Di Carli MF, Blankstein R. Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:880–892. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.061.
    1. Weinstock MB, Finnerty NM, Pallaci M. Time to move on: redefining chest pain outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e012542. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012542.
    1. Goehler A, Mayrhofer T, Pursnani A, Ferencik M, Lumish HS, Barth C, Karády J, Chow B, Truong QA, Udelson JE, et al. Long‐term health outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of coronary CT angiography in patients with suspicion for acute coronary syndrome. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020;14:44–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.06.008.
    1. Scot‐Heart Investigators , Newby DE, Adamson PD, Berry C, Boon NA, Dweck MR, Flather M, Forbes J, Hunter A, Lewis S, MacLean S, et al. Coronary CT angiography and 5‐year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:924–933. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805971.
    1. Atzema CL, Maclagan LC. The transition of care between emergency department and primary care: a scoping study. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:201–215. DOI: 10.1111/acem.13125.
    1. Chang AM, Hollander JE. For low‐risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, should urgent (72‐hours) non‐invasive cardiac testing be performed after biomarker exclusion of acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71:464–465. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.08.048.
    1. Oliver G, Reynard C, Morris N, Body R. Can emergency physician gestalt "rule in" or "rule out" acute coronary syndrome: validation in a multicenter prospective diagnostic cohort study. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27:24–30. DOI: 10.1111/acem.13836.
    1. Mahler SA, Miller CD, Hollander JE, Nagurney JT, Birkhahn R, Singer AJ, Shapiro NI, Glynn T, Nowak R, Safdar B, et al. Identifying patients for early discharge: performance of decision rules among patients with acute chest pain. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:795–802. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.10.010.
    1. Nestelberger T, Boeddinghaus J, Wussler D, Twerenbold R, Badertscher P, Wildi K, Miró Ò, López B, Martin‐Sanchez FJ, Muzyk P, et al. Predicting major adverse events in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:842–854. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.025.
    1. Ras M, Reitsma JB, Hoes AW, Six AJ, Poldervaart JM. Value of repeated troponin measurements to improve the safety of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2020;19:62–68. DOI: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000213.
    1. Cullen L, Parsonage WA, Greenslade J, Lamanna A, Hammett CJ, Than M, Tate J, Kalinowski L, Ungerer JPJ, Chu K, et al. Delta troponin for the early diagnosis of AMI in emergency patients with chest pain. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:2602–2608. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.044.
    1. Cullen L, Greenslade J, Than M, Tate J, Ungerer JPJ, Pretorius C, Hammett CJ, Lamanna A, Chu K, Brown AFT, et al. Performance of risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome with two‐hour sensitive troponin assay results. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:428–434. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.11.003.
    1. Liberati EG, Ruggiero F, Galuppo L, Gorli M, González‐Lorenzo M, Maraldi M, Ruggieri P, Polo Friz H, Scaratti G, Kwag KH, et al. What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2017;12:113. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2.
    1. Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL, Selker HP. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1163–1170. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200004203421603.
    1. Mulherin SA, Miller WC. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:598–602. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-7-200210010-00011.
    1. Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Backus BE, Koffijberg H, Veldkamp RF, Ten Haaf ME, Appelman Y, Mannaerts HFJ, van Dantzig J‐M, van den Heuvel M, et al. Effect of using the HEART score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a stepped‐wedge, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:689–697. DOI: 10.7326/M16-1600.
    1. Gershon CA, Yagapen AN, Lin A, Yanez D, Sun BC. Inter‐rater reliability of the heart score. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26:552–555. DOI: 10.1111/acem.13665.
    1. Ras M, Reitsma JB, Hoes AW, Six AJ, Poldervaart JM. Secondary analysis of frequency, circumstances and consequences of calculation errors of the HEART (history, ecg, age, risk factors and troponin) score at the emergency departments of nine hospitals in the netherlands. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e017259. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017259.
    1. Swap CJ, Nagurney JT. Value and limitations of chest pain history in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2005;294:2623–2629. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.20.2623.
    1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, White HD; Executive Group on behalf of the Joint European Society of Cardiology /American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association /World Heart Federation Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial I . Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Circulation. 2018;138:e618–e651. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000617.
    1. Gaggin HK, Liu Y, Lyass A, van Kimmenade RRJ, Motiwala SR, Kelly NP, Mallick A, Gandhi PU, Ibrahim NE, Simon ML, et al. Incident type 2 myocardial infarction in a cohort of patients undergoing coronary or peripheral arterial angiography. Circulation. 2017;135:116–127. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023052.
    1. Sandhu AT, Heidenreich PA, Bhattacharya J, Bundorf MK. Cardiovascular testing and clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with chest pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1175–1182. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2432.
    1. Natsui S, Sun BC, Shen E, Redberg RF, Ferencik M, Lee M‐S, Musigdilok V, Wu Y‐L, Zheng C, Kawatkar AA, et al. Higher emergency physician chest pain hospitalization rates do not lead to improved patient outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021;14:e006297. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006297.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する