Objective We aimed to examine the role of the HEART (history, EKG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score in the evaluation of six clinical outcomes among three groups of patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods We performed a retrospective observational study among three ED patient groups including White, Black, and Hispanic patients. ED providers used the HEART score to assess the need for patient hospital admission and for emergent cardiac imaging tests (CITs). HEART scores were measured using classification accuracy rates. Performance accuracies were measured in terms of HEART score in relation to four clinical outcomes (positive findings of CITs, ED returns, hospital readmissions, and 30-day major adverse cardiac events [MACE]). Results A high classification accuracy rate (87%) was found for use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. HEART scores showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66–0.78) in predicting results of emergent CITs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes. Conclusions Providers adhered to use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. The HEART score may be associated with emergent CIT findings, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes, with no differences among White, Black, and Hispanic patient populations.

Background A significant number of chest pain patients had previous cardiac imaging tests (CIT) performed before being presented to the Emergency Department (ED). The HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) score has been used to risk-stratify chest pain patients in the ED, but not particularly for patients with CIT performed. We aim to modify the current HEART score with the addition of most recent CIT findings (referred to as HEART2 score), to predict a 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among ED chest pain patients, compare the performance accuracy of using HEART versus HEART2 score for 30-day MACE outcome predictions, and further determine the value of HEART2 in a subset group of ED chest pain patients (i.e., ones with previous CIT). Methods This is a single-center observational study. We included chest pain patients with HEART scores calculated during their index ED visits. A modified HEART2 score was developed with the addition of CIT findings as one of the HEART2 components. Patients were divided into three groups, including low (≤ 3), moderate (4–6), and high-risk HEART/HEART2 scores (≥ 7). MACE occurrence of a patient with different risks of HEART and HEART2 scores and overall performance accuracy of HEART versus HEART2 score predicting MACE outcomes were compared. Results We included a total of 9419 chest pain patients at ED, among which one out of five patients (1874/9419) had previous CIT performed. Fewer (38.2%) of such patients had low-risk HEART scores in comparison to 55.5% of low-risk HEART2 scores (p < 0.001). The MACE outcomes were similar in low-risk HEART patients compared with low-risk HEART2 patients (2.2% versus 3.1%, p = 0.3021). The overall performance accuracy of using the HEART2 score to stratify chest pain patients with previous CIT was better than using the HEART score’s (AUC 0.74 versus 0.71, p = 0.0082). Conclusions Using the HEART2 score might be suitable to stratify low-to-moderate risk chest pain patients at ED with a similar 30-days MACE occurrence compared to the HEART score. More importantly, with the use of similar low-risk criteria (HEART2 ≤ 3), over 45% more chest pain patients with previous CIT performed could be discharged directly from ED.

No abstract