Abbonarsi

Performance analysis considering endpoints for three accelerated diagnostic protocols for chest pain - 13/01/23

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.11.020 
Bora Chae, MD, PhD, Shin Ahn, MD, PhD , Seung Mok Ryoo, MD, PhD, Youn-Jung Kim, MD, PhD, Dong-Woo Seo, MD, PhD, Chang Hwan Sohn, MD, PhD, Won Young Kim, MD, PhD
 Department of Emergency Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 

Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.Department of Emergency MedicineAsan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-guSeoul05505Republic of Korea

Abstract

Introduction

The modified accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) to assess patients with chest pain symptoms using troponin as the only biomarker (mADAPT), the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin (HEART) pathway, and the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Rule (EDACS)-ADP, are the three most well-known ADPs for patients with chest pain. These ADPs define major adverse cardiac event (MACE) as components of acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, and death; unstable angina is not included as an endpoint.

Methods

We performed a single-center prospective observational study comparing the performance of these 3 ADPs for patients with 30-day MACE with and without unstable angina. We hypothesized that these ADPs will have high sensitivities for MACE without unstable angina, a definition used for score derivation studies. However, when unstable angina is included in the MACE, their performances would be lower than the acceptable rate of >99% sensitivity.

Results

A total of 1,214 patients were included in the analysis. When unstable angina was not included in the endpoint, sensitivities for MACE were 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.7–99.9%), 99.5% (95% CI: 97.4–100%), and 100% (95% CI: 98.3–100%) for mADAPT, EDACS-ADP, and HEART pathway, respectively. The HEART pathway had the highest proportion of patients classified as low risk (39.2%, 95% CI: 35.8–42.9%), followed by EDACS-ADP (31.3%, 95% CI: 28.2–34.6%) and mADAPT (29.3%, 95% CI: 26.4–32.5%). However, when unstable angina was included in the MACE, sensitivities were 96.6% (95% CI: 94.4–98.1%) for mADAPT, 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3–98.6%) for EDACS-ADP, and 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3–98.6%) for the HEART pathway, respectively. There were 15 false-negative cases with mADAPT, and 12 false-negative cases each for EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway.

Conclusion

All three ADPs—mADAPT, EDACS-ADP, and HEART pathway—were similarly accurate in their discriminatory performance for the risk stratification of ED patients presenting with possible ACS when unstable angina was not included in the endpoint. The HEART pathway showed the best combination of sensitivity and proportion of patients that can be classified as safe for early discharge. However, when unstable angina was added to the endpoint, all three ADPs did not show appropriate safety levels and their performances were lower than the acceptable risk of MACE.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Chest pain, Major adverse cardiac event, Acute coronary syndrome, Emergency department


Mappa


© 2022  Elsevier Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 64

P. 51-56 - febbraio 2023 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Esmolol, vector change, and dose-capped epinephrine for prehospital ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia
  • Kyle Stupca, Nicholas Scaturo, Eileen Shomo, Tonya King, Marshall Frank
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Impact of intravenous calcium with diltiazem for atrial fibrillation/flutter in the emergency department
  • Nicole Rossi, Bryan Allen, Kirubel Hailu, Katherine Kamataris, Colten Ryan

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.