BackgroundThe HEART Pathway combines a History ECG Age Risk factor (HEAR) score and serial troponins to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, it is unclear whether patients with HEAR scores of <1 require troponin testing. The objective of this study is to measure the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate among patients with <1 HEAR scores and determine whether serial troponin testing is needed to achieve a miss rate <1%.MethodsA secondary analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study was conducted. HEART Pathway risk assessments (HEAR scores and serial troponin testing at 0 and 3 hours) were completed by the providers on adult patients with chest pain from three US sites between November 2014 and January 2016. MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days was determined. The proportion of patients with HEAR scores of <1 diagnosed with MACE within 30 days was calculated. The impact of troponin testing on patients with HEAR scores of <1 was determined using Net Reclassification Improvement Index (NRI).ResultsProviders completed HEAR assessments on 4979 patients and HEAR scores<1 occurred in 9.0% (447/4979) of patients. Among these patients, MACE at 30 days occurred in 0.9% (4/447; 95% CI 0.2% to 2.3%) with two deaths, two MIs and 0 revascularisations. The sensitivity and negative predictive value for MACE in the HEAR <1 was 97.8% (95%CI 94.5% to 99.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.7% to 99.8%), respectively, and were not improved by troponin testing. Troponin testing in patients with HEAR <1 correctly reclassified two patients diagnosed with MACE, and was elevated among seven patients without MACE yielding an NRI of 0.9% (95%CI −0.7 to 2.4%).ConclusionThese data suggest that patients with HEAR scores of 0 and 1 represent a very low-risk group that may not require troponin testing to achieve a missed MACE rate <1%.Trial registration numberNCT02056964

No abstract

ImportanceThe European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour algorithm is a validated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) protocol for emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. However, limited data exist regarding its performance in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD; prior myocardial infarction [MI], coronary revascularization, or ≥70% coronary stenosis).ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm for 30-day cardiac death or MI among patients with and without known CAD and determine if the algorithm could achieve the negative predictive value rule-out threshold of 99% or higher.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a preplanned subgroup analysis of the STOP-CP prospective multisite cohort study, which was conducted from January 25, 2017, through September 6, 2018, at 8 emergency departments in the US. Patients 21 years or older with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation on initial electrocardiogram were included. Analysis took place between February and December 2022.Interventions/ExposuresParticipants with 0- and 1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measures were stratified into rule-out, observation, and rule-in zones using the ESC 0/1-hour hs-cTnT algorithm.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCardiac death or MI at 30 days determined by expert adjudicators.ResultsDuring the study period, 1430 patients were accrued. In the cohort, 775 individuals (54.2%) were male, 826 (57.8%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 57.6 (12.8) years. At 30 days, cardiac death or MI occurred in 183 participants (12.8%). Known CAD was present in 449 (31.4%). Among patients with known CAD, the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm classified 178 of 449 (39.6%) into the rule-out zone compared with 648 of 981 (66.1%) without CAD (P &amp;lt; .001). Among rule-out zone patients, 30-day cardiac death or MI occurred in 6 of 178 patients (3.4%) with known CAD and 7 of 648 (1.1%) without CAD (P &amp;lt; .001). The negative predictive value for 30-day cardiac death or MI was 96.6% (95% CI, 92.8-98.8) among patients with known CAD and 98.9% (95% CI, 97.8-99.6) in patients without known CAD (P = .04).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with known CAD, the ESC 0/1-hour hs-cTnT algorithm was unable to safely exclude 30-day cardiac death or MI. This suggests that clinicians should be cautious if using the algorithm in patients with known CAD. The negative predictive value was significantly higher in patients without a history of CAD but remained less than 99%.

BackgroundThe History Electrocardiogram Age Risk factor Troponin (HEART) Pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) are validated accelerated diagnostic pathways designed to risk stratify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Data from large multisite prospective studies comparing these accelerated diagnostic pathways are limited.MethodsThe HEART Pathway Implementation is a prospective three-site cohort study, which accrued adults with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome. Physicians completed electronic health record HEART Pathway and EDACS risk assessments on participants. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days were determined using electronic health record, insurance claims and death index data. Test characteristics for detection of major adverse cardiac events were calculated for both accelerated diagnostic pathways and McNemar’s tests were used for comparisons.Results5799 patients presenting to the emergency department were accrued, of which HEART Pathway and EDACS assessments were completed on 4399. Major adverse cardiac events at 30 days occurred in 449/4399 (10.2%). The HEART Pathway identified 38.4% (95% CI 37.0% to 39.9%) of patients as low-risk compared with 58.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 59.6%) identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.9%) of patients classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway compared with 1.0% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.5%) of patients identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Thus, the HEART Pathway had a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.8%) for major adverse cardiac events compared with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.3%) for EDACS.ConclusionsEDACS identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the HEART Pathway, but has a higher missed major adverse cardiac events rate at 30 days. Physicians will need to consider their risk tolerance when deciding whether to adopt the HEART Pathway or EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway.Trial registration numberNCT02056964.

No abstract