Risk score demonstrates improved diagnostic accuracy in patients with dyspnoea transported by emergency medical services, highlighting the potential for timely HF treatment.
AIMS: Diagnostic uncertainty is a major barrier to the timely treatment of heart failure (HF) in the prehospital setting. We aimed to develop and validate a decision support tool using readily available clinical variables to predict the probability of HF among dyspnoeic patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A population-based cohort of all adults transported by EMS for dyspnoea in Victoria, Australia was chronologically split into derivation (2015-2017) and temporal validation (2018-2019) cohorts. Two models were developed: (1) a full multivariable logistic regression model using adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, and (2) a simplified points-based RAPID-CHF score derived from the nine most predictive variables. Among 271,204 patients with dyspnoea (176,269 derivation; 94,935 validation), 9.4% and 9.0% had HF, respectively. The full model included 19 variables and demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.861 derivation; 0.862 validation) and calibration. The RAPID-CHF score (range 0-13; comprising age, ECG rhythm, prior HF, conscious state, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, peripheral oedema, and crackles) retained strong performance (AUC 0.835 derivation; 0.836 validation) and calibration. HF prevalence increased across predefined risk categories: low (score 0-5; HF prevalence 1.7%), moderate (6-9; 13.6%) and high (10-13; 46.4%). Decision curve analysis demonstrated greater net benefit across clinically relevant thresholds than current EMS diagnosis or "treat all"/"treat none" strategies. CONCLUSION: A risk score derived from routinely collected prehospital variables accurately estimates HF probability among EMS-transported patients with dyspnoea. The RAPID-CHF score may facilitate earlier diagnosis and timely initiation of HF therapy in EMS workflows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: