New scoring system for acute chest pain risk stratification: Is it worth SVEAT-ing it?

The emergency room is a very potent environment in the hospital.With the growing demands of the population,improved accessibility to health resources,and the onslaught of the triple pandemic,it is extremely crucial to triage patients at presentation.In the spectrum of complaints,chest pain is the commonest.Despite it being a daily ailment,chest pain brings concern to every physician at first.Chest pain could span from acute coronary syndrome,pulmonary embolism,and aortic dissection(all potentially fatal)to reflux,zoster,or musculoskeletal causes that do not need rapid interventions.We often employ scoring systems such as GRACE/PURSUIT/TIMI to assist in clinical decision-making.Over the years,the HEART score became a popular and effective tool for predicting the risk of 30-d major adverse cardiovascular events.Recently,a new scoring system called SVEAT was developed and compared to the HEART score.We have attempted to summarize how these scoring systems differ and their generalizability.With an increasing number of scoring systems being introduced,one must also prevent anchorage bias;i.e.,tools such as these are only diagnosis-specific and not organ-specific,and other emergent differential diagnoses must also be kept in mind before discharging the patient home without additional workup.

Application Value of NLR,PLR,LMR,HEART score,and POCT in Early Warning and Accurate Graded Diagnosis of High-Risk Chest Pain in Emergency Medicine

Objective: To evaluate the application value of neutrophils/lymphocytes (NLR), platelets/lymphocytes (PLR), lymphocytes/monocytes (LMR), HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) score, and point-of- care testing (POCT) in the early warning and precise diagnosis of high-risk chest pain in emergency medicine. Methods: A total of 157 patients with acute chest pain who were admitted to the emergency department and chest pain treatment unit of our hospital between August 2022 and September 2023 were selected. Rapid testing of bedside myocardial markers (ultrasensitive troponin (hs-cTnI), myoglobin (MYO), creatine kinase isoenzyme (CK-MB), D-dimer (D-Dimer), and N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP)) was performed on the patients using a POCT device (ThermoKing BioMQ60proB). A HEART score was used to classify the patients into low (n = 53), intermediate (n = 59), and high-risk (n = 45) groups, and the NLR, PLR, and LMR were calculated. The NLR, PLR, and LMR values were compared among the three groups of patients, and the optimal cutoff values as well as sensitivity and specificity were determined based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The HEART scores of patients in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were (2.72 ± 0.24), (4.75 ± 0.56), and (5.32 ± 0.73) respectively, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with the low-risk group, the intermediate-risk group and high-risk group had a significantly higher NLR and PLR, and a significantly lower LMR;the high-risk group had higher NLR and PLR and lower values of LMR as compared to the other two groups, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The ROC curves suggested that the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity of the combined diagnosis of NLR, PLR, LMR, HEART score, and POCT were greater than those of LR, PLR, and LMR with HEART score and POCT alone. Conclusion: The combined application of NLR, PLR, LMR, HEART score, and POCT has significant application value in the early warning and precise diagnosis of emergency high-risk chest pain. It provides a more simple, easy-to-access, and efficient assessment index for the clinical prediction and treatment of emergency high- risk chest pain.

Computed tomography coronary angiography after excluding myocardial infarction:high-sensitivity troponin versus risk score-guided approach

BACKGROUND:Patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom myocardial infarction has been ruled out are still at risk of having obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).This rate is higher among patients with intermediate high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) concentrations (5 ng/L to 99th percentile) than low concentrations (<5 ng/L).Therefore,an intermediate concentration has been suggested as a candidate for downstream investigation with computed tomography coronary angiography(CTCA).We tried to compare the HEART score-guided vs.hsTnI-guided approach for identifying obstructive CAD.METHODS:From a prospective cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected ACS,433 patients without elevated hsTnI who also underwent CTCA were selected and analyzed.The performances of hsTnI concentration and HEART score were compared using sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value (PPV),and negative predictive value (NPV).RESULTS:Overall,120 (27.7%) patients had obstructive CAD.Patients with intermediate hsTnI concentrations were more likely to have obstructive CAD than those with low hsTnI concentrations(40.0%vs.18.1%);patients with non-low-risk HEART scores (≥4 points) were also more likely to have obstructive CAD than those with low-risk scores (0 to 3 points)(41.0%vs.7.6%).The HEART score had higher sensitivity and NPV for detecting obstructive CAD in each classification than hsTnI concentration (sensitivity:89.2%vs.63.3%;NPV:92.4%vs.81.9%,respectively).CONCLUSION:After excluding myocardial infarction in patients with suspected ACS,adding the HEART score for selecting candidates for CTCA could improve patient risk stratification more accurately than relying on hsTnI concentration.