Why the study?
The study aimed to clarify the relative prognostic value of each HEART score component for MACE within 3 months and validate the modified HEART score.
Does the modified HEART (mHEART) score improve the prediction of 3-month major adverse cardiac events in emergency department patients with chest pain compared to the original HEART and TIMI scores?
Does the modified HEART (mHEART) score improve the prediction of 3-month major adverse cardiac events in emergency department patients with chest pain compared to the original HEART and TIMI scores?
The modified HEART score, which omits the age component, demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy for predicting 3-month major adverse cardiac events compared to the original HEART and TIMI scores in emergency department patients with chest pain.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May refine mHEART components for ED chest pain; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clarify the relative prognostic value of each History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score component for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 3 months and validate the modified HEART (mHEART) score. METHODS: This study evaluated the HEART score components for patients with chest symptoms visiting the emergency department from November 19, 2018 to November 19, 2019. All components were evaluated using logistic regression analysis and the scores for HEART, mHEART, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) were determined using the receiver operating characteristics curve. RESULTS: The patients were divided into a derivation (809 patients) and a validation group (298 patients). In multivariate analysis, age did not show statistical significance in the detection of MACE within 3 months and the mHEART score was calculated after omitting the age component. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for HEART, mHEART and TIMI scores in the prediction of MACE within 3 months were 0.88, 0.91, and 0.83, respectively, in the derivation group; and 0.88, 0.91, and 0.81, respectively, in the validation group. When the cutoff value for each scoring system was determined for the maintenance of a negative predictive value for a MACE rate >99%, the mHEART score showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (97.4%, 54.2%, 23.7%, and 99.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the mHEART score better detects short-term MACE in high-risk patients and ensures the safe disposition of low-risk patients than the HEART and TIMI scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: