The HEART score as a prognostic tool for revascularization
- 37 Downloads
The History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) score is a useful tool in the Emergency Department setting to identify those patients safe for outpatient evaluation of chest pain. Its utility for predicting cardiac interventions is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of the HEART score to predict the need for cardiac stent or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We conducted a retrospective chart review of 625 consecutive subjects with chest pain presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) with a HEART pathway protocol in place. We also reviewed each subject’s record for evidence of major adverse cardiac events within 6 weeks following their ED visit. We double-abstracted 10% of the charts for quality assurance. We included subjects if they were ≥ 18 at the time of presentation and had a chief complaint of chest pain. We excluded subjects if they did not have an electrocardiogram or troponin, or if their chart lacked sufficient information to calculate the history portion of their HEART score. Of 625 charts, 449 subjects met criteria for study inclusion. The area under the receiver operator curve reported as c-statistics was 0.877 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.806–0.949] for the HEART score’s ability to predict cardiac stent and 0.921 (95% CI 0.858–0.984) for CABG. There is a strong association between increasing HEART scores and the need for revascularization which may provide emergency physicians justification for expedited cardiology consultation and admission for these patients. These findings require further prospective validation.
KeywordsHEART score Revascularization Predict
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This study was approved by the local institutional review board and determined to be ethical and in keeping with both Human and animal rights.
Informed consent was waived as it was a chart review study and study data was de-identified.
- 1.Bhuiya FA, Pitts SR, McCaig LF (2010) Emergency department visits for chest pain and abdominal pain: United States, 1999–2008. NCHS Data Brief 43:1–8Google Scholar
- 2.Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG et al (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-st-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 64(24):e139–e228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Koffijberg H et al (2013) The impact of the HEART risk score in the early assessment of patients with acute chest pain: design of a stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 13:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-13-77 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Mahler SA, Hiestand BC, Goff DCJ, Hoekstra JW, Miller CD (2011) Can the HEART score safely reduce stress testing and cardiac imaging in patients at low risk for major adverse cardiac events? Crit Pathw Cardiol 10(3):128–133. https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0b013e3182315a85 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC et al (2015) The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 8(2):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.001384 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Jain T, Nowak R, Hudson M, Frisoli T, Jacobsen G, McCord J (2016) Short- and long-term prognostic utility of the HEART score in patients evaluated in the emergency department for possible acute coronary syndrome. Crit Pathw Cardiol 15(2):40–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Schauer SG, Varney SM, Cox KL (2015) Garrison clinical setting inadequate for maintenance of procedural skills for emergency medicine physicians: a cross-sectional study. J Spec Oper Med a peer Rev J SOF Med Prof 15(4):67–70Google Scholar