The HEART score as a prognostic tool for revascularization

  • Joshua James OliverEmail author
  • Matthew Jay Streitz
  • Jessica Marie Hyams
  • Richard Michael Wood
  • Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Maksimenko
  • Steven Gremel Schauer
  • Brit Long
  • Robert Michael Barnwell
  • Rachel Elisabeth Bridwell
  • Michael David April


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.


HEART 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

Informed consent was waived as it was a chart review study and study data was de-identified.


  1. 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. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC et al (2010) Chest pain in the emergency room: a multicenter validation of the HEART Score. Crit Pathw Cardiol 9(3):164–169. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Backus BE et al (2017) Effect of using the HEART score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a stepped-wedge. Clust Rand Trial Ann Intern Med 166(10):689–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Six AJ, Backus BE, Kelder JC (2008) Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the HEART score. Neth Heart J 16(6):191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahler SA, Miller CD, Hollander JE et al (2013) Identifying patients for early discharge: performance of decision rules among patients with acute chest pain. Int J Cardiol 168(2):795–802. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oliver JJ, Streitz MJ, Hyams JM et al (2018) An external validation of the HEART pathway among Emergency Department patients with chest pain. Intern Emerg Med. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyams JM, Streitz MJ, Oliver JJ et al (2018) Impact of the HEART pathway on admission rates for emergency department patients with chest pain: an external clinical validation study. J Emerg Med. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Streitz MJ, Oliver JJ, Hyams JM et al (2018) A retrospective external validation study of the HEART score among patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Intern Emerg Med. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC et al (2013) A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol 168(3):2153–2158. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caetano SJ, Sonpavde G, Pond GR (2018) C-statistic: A brief explanation of its construction, interpretation and limitations. Eur J Cancer 90:130–132. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaji AH, Schriger D, Green S (2014) Looking through the retrospectoscope: reducing bias in emergency medicine chart review studies. Ann Emerg Med 64(3):292–298. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elbarouni B, Goodman SG, Yan RT et al (2009) Validation of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Event (GRACE) risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Canada. Am Heart J 158(3):392–399. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ et al (2000) The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA 284(7):835–842. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poldervaart JM, Langedijk M, Backus BE et al (2017) Comparison of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI score to predict major adverse cardiac events in chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol 227:656–661. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Smith TC, Zamorski M, Smith B et al (2007) The physical and mental health of a large military cohort: baseline functional health status of the Millennium Cohort. BMC Public Health 7:340. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua James Oliver
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew Jay Streitz
    • 1
  • Jessica Marie Hyams
    • 1
  • Richard Michael Wood
    • 1
  • Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Maksimenko
    • 2
  • Steven Gremel Schauer
    • 1
  • Brit Long
    • 1
  • Robert Michael Barnwell
    • 1
  • Rachel Elisabeth Bridwell
    • 1
  • Michael David April
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineSan Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education ConsortiumFort Sam HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Emergency DepartmentBoston University Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations