Key result
The HEART score demonstrated the highest prognostic performance for predicting 6-month major adverse cardiac events (AUC 0.747) in Chinese patients with suspected cardiac chest pain, though not significantly different from the TIMI score.
Why the study?
Does the HEART score perform better than TIMI, GRACE, and Banach scores in predicting MACE in Chinese patients with suspected cardiac chest pain?
Cohort (n=833)
Blinded outcome assessment
Yes
Does the HEART score perform better than TIMI, GRACE, and Banach scores in predicting MACE in Chinese patients with suspected cardiac chest pain?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.747% vs 0.734%
In Chinese patients presenting to the ED with suspected cardiac chest pain, the HEART score is superior for predicting total MACE and effectiveness outcomes, whereas the Banach score is best for predicting safety outcomes.
May support HEART score for MACE stratification in Chinese ED patients; leaves open superiority to TIMI and broader validation.
Four risk scores for stratifying patients with chest pain presenting to emergency departments (EDs) (namely Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction [TIMI], Global registry for acute coronary events [GRACE], Banach and HEART) have been developed in Western settings but have never been compared and validated in Chinese patients. We aimed to find out to the number of MACE within 7 days, 30 days, and 6 months after initial ED presentation, and also to compare the prognostic performance of these scores in Chinese patients with suspected cardiac chest pain (CCP) to predict 7-day, 30-day, and 6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE).A prospective 2-center observational cohort study of consecutive patients presenting with chest pain to the EDs of 2 university hospitals in Guangdong and Hong Kong from 17 March 2012 to 14 August 2013 was conducted. Patients aged ≥18 years with suspected CCP but without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were recruited.Of 833 enrolled patients (mean age 65.1 years, SD14.5; 55.6% males), 121 (14.5%) experienced MACE within 6 months (4.8% with safety outcomes and 10.3% with effectiveness outcomes). The HEART score had the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for predicting MACE at 7-day, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up [area under curve (AUC) = 0.731, 0.726, and 0.747, respectively. The HEART score also had the largest AUC for predicting effectiveness outcome (AUC = 0.715, 0.704, and 0.721, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in AUC between HEART and TIMI scores. Banach had the largest AUC for predicting safety outcome (AUC = 0.856, 0.837, and 0.850, respectively).The HEART score performed better than the GRACE and Banach scores to predict total MACE and effectiveness outcome in Chinese patients with suspected CCP, whereas the Banach score best predicted safety outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Suspected cardiac chest pain (n=833). HEART score vs. TIMI, GRACE, and Banach scores was evaluated on Area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting total MACE at 6 months (95% CI 0.716-0.776). The HEART score demonstrated the highest prognostic performance for predicting 6-month major adverse cardiac events (AUC 0.747) in Chinese patients with suspected cardiac chest pain, though not significantly different from the TIMI score.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: