Key result
HEART-score-guided CCTA cuts scan utilization ~22% while maintaining high diagnostic accuracy for 30-day MACE.
Why the study?
The diagnostic value and efficiency of the HEART score before coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected acute coronary syndrome patients in the emergency department was not established.
Does using the HEART score to select patients for coronary computed tomography angiography improve diagnostic efficiency in patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department?
Observational (n=340)
Does using the HEART score to select patients for coronary computed tomography angiography improve diagnostic efficiency in patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department?
Reserving coronary computed tomography angiography for emergency department patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome and a HEART score of 3-6 reduces unnecessary imaging by 22% while maintaining high diagnostic accuracy for 30-day major adverse cardiac events.
May safely reduce CCTA volume by 22% while preserving sensitivity in suspected ACS; leaves open need for prospective outcome trials.
Aims: Coronary computed tomography angiography is increasingly employed in the emergency department for suspected acute coronary syndrome patients. The HEART score has been proposed for initial risk stratification in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value and efficiency of the HEART score before coronary computed tomography angiography. Methods and results: We included patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department. Based on the HEART score, patients were stratified as low-risk (HEART≤3), intermediate-risk (HEART4–6) and high-risk (HEART≥7). We assessed coronary computed tomography angiography for the presence of significant coronary artery disease (>50% stenosis). The primary outcome, the level of major adverse cardiac events, was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation within 30 days. The study population consisted of 340 patients (mean age: 55.6±10.1 years, 44.7% women), major adverse cardiac events occurred in 45 (13.2%) patients. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events in patients stratified as low-risk (35.0%), intermediate-risk (56.8%) and high-risk (8.2%) was 3.4%, 12.4% and 60.7%, respectively. All four low-risk patients with major adverse cardiac events had a HEART score of three. An algorithm where coronary computed tomography angiography is reserved for patients with HEART 3–6 resulted in a sensitivity of 97.8%, specificity of 84.1%, negative predictive value of 99.6% and positive predictive value of 48.4%, while reducing the need for coronary computed tomography angiography by 22% ( n=75). Conclusion: The predictive value of coronary computed tomography angiography for 30-day major adverse cardiac events in suspected acute coronary syndrome patients is good, and reserving coronary computed tomography angiography for HEART score 3–6 patients reduces the number of needed coronary computed tomography angiograms without affecting diagnostic accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arslan et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Suspected acute coronary syndrome (n=340). HEART score risk stratification was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation within 30 days. Reserving CCTA for patients with a HEART score of 3-6 yielded 97.8% sensitivity and 99.6% negative predictive value for 30-day MACE, reducing the need for CCTA by 22%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: