4.3 Article

Prognostic Utility of a Modified HEART Score in Chest Pain Patients in the Emergency Department

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003101

关键词

mortality; myocardial infarction; patient discharge; prognosis; troponin-T

资金

  1. Roche Diagnostics
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PDF-2012-05-193] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  3. National Institute for Health Research [PDF-2012-05-193] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-The TRAPID-AMI trial study ( High-Sensitivity Troponin-T Assay for Rapid Rule-Out of Acute Myocardial Infarction) evaluated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin-T ( hs-cTnT) in a 1-hour acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) exclusion algorithm. Our study objective was to evaluate the prognostic utility of a modified HEART score ( m-HS) within this trial. Methods and Results-Twelve centers evaluated 1282 patients in the emergency department for possible AMI from 2011 to 2013. Measurements of hs-cTnT ( 99th percentile, 14 ng/L) were performed at 0, 1, 2, and 4 to 14 hours. Evaluation for major adverse cardiac events ( MACEs) occurred at 30 days ( death or AMI). Low-risk patients had an m-HS <= 3 and had either hs-cTnT<14 ng/L over serial testing or had AMI excluded by the 1-hour protocol. By the 1-hour protocol, 777 ( 60%) patients had an AMI excluded. Of those 777 patients, 515 ( 66.3%) patients had an m-HS <= 3, with 1 ( 0.2%) patient having a MACE, and 262 ( 33.7%) patients had an m-HS <= 4, with 6 ( 2.3%) patients having MACEs ( P=0.007). Over 4 to 14 hours, 661 patients had a hs-cTnT<14 ng/L. Of those 661 patients, 413 ( 62.5%) patients had an m-HS <= 3, with 1 ( 0.2%) patient having a MACE, and 248 ( 37.5%) patients had an m-HS >= 4, with 5 ( 2.0%) patients having MACEs ( P=0.03). Conclusions-Serial testing of hs-cTnT over 1 hour along with application of an m-HS identified a low-risk population that might be able to be directly discharged from the emergency department.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据