HEART vs. GRACE scores for 30-day cardiovascular outcomes in acute chest pain : A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Herz Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1007/s00059-025-05340-y
Peng-Fei Nie, Jun Chen, Huan-Tong Li
{"title":"HEART vs. GRACE scores for 30-day cardiovascular outcomes in acute chest pain : A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Peng-Fei Nie, Jun Chen, Huan-Tong Li","doi":"10.1007/s00059-025-05340-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation requiring rapid risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization). While the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) and GRACE scores are widely used, their comparative predictive accuracy for short-term MACE remains unclear. This study aimed to directly compare the diagnostic performance of HEART and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) in predicting 30-day MACE among ED patients with acute chest pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to May 2025 for prospective cohort studies directly comparing HEART and GRACE scores. Included studies applied both scores at ED presentation, reported 30-day MACE (death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization), and provided data for 2 × 2 contingency tables. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (PLR/NLR), diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed via I<sup>2</sup> statistics, and subgroup analyses explored sources of variation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 19 studies (14,862 patients) were included. The HEART score demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98 vs. 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91; ratio: 1.09 [1.05-1.14]) and lower negative likelihood ratio (NLR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17 vs. 0.42, 95% CI: 0.39-0.46) than the GRACE score. Specificity was lower for HEART (0.50, 95% CI: 0.41-0.60) versus GRACE (0.61, 95% CI: 0.58-0.64), while GRACE showed higher specificity. HEART also had superior discriminative power (AUC: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84 vs. 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75; ratio: 1.11 [1.07-1.15]). Subgroup analyses confirmed HEART's advantage in sensitivity across geographic regions and age groups, particularly in Eastern populations (sensitivity ratio: 1.57 [1.27-1.93]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The HEART score outperforms GRACE in sensitivity and rule-out capability (lower NLR) for 30-day MACE in ED patients with acute chest pain, supporting its utility for safe discharge of low-risk individuals. GRACE's higher specificity may aid in identifying high-risk cases requiring intervention. Standardization of troponin assays and MACE definitions is critical for future implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12863,"journal":{"name":"Herz","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-025-05340-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Acute chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation requiring rapid risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization). While the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) and GRACE scores are widely used, their comparative predictive accuracy for short-term MACE remains unclear. This study aimed to directly compare the diagnostic performance of HEART and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) in predicting 30-day MACE among ED patients with acute chest pain.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to May 2025 for prospective cohort studies directly comparing HEART and GRACE scores. Included studies applied both scores at ED presentation, reported 30-day MACE (death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization), and provided data for 2 × 2 contingency tables. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (PLR/NLR), diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed via I2 statistics, and subgroup analyses explored sources of variation.

Results: In total, 19 studies (14,862 patients) were included. The HEART score demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98 vs. 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91; ratio: 1.09 [1.05-1.14]) and lower negative likelihood ratio (NLR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17 vs. 0.42, 95% CI: 0.39-0.46) than the GRACE score. Specificity was lower for HEART (0.50, 95% CI: 0.41-0.60) versus GRACE (0.61, 95% CI: 0.58-0.64), while GRACE showed higher specificity. HEART also had superior discriminative power (AUC: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84 vs. 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75; ratio: 1.11 [1.07-1.15]). Subgroup analyses confirmed HEART's advantage in sensitivity across geographic regions and age groups, particularly in Eastern populations (sensitivity ratio: 1.57 [1.27-1.93]).

Conclusion: The HEART score outperforms GRACE in sensitivity and rule-out capability (lower NLR) for 30-day MACE in ED patients with acute chest pain, supporting its utility for safe discharge of low-risk individuals. GRACE's higher specificity may aid in identifying high-risk cases requiring intervention. Standardization of troponin assays and MACE definitions is critical for future implementation.

急性胸痛患者30天心血管结局的HEART与GRACE评分:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:急性胸痛是一种常见的急诊科(ED)表现,需要对主要不良心血管事件(MACE,包括死亡、心肌梗死和紧急血运重建术)进行快速风险分层。虽然HEART(病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素、肌钙蛋白)和GRACE评分被广泛使用,但它们对短期MACE的相对预测准确性尚不清楚。本研究旨在直接比较HEART和GRACE(全球急性冠状动脉事件登记)在预测急性胸痛ED患者30天MACE的诊断性能。方法:我们系统地检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Scopus和Web of Science从成立到2025年5月的前瞻性队列研究,直接比较HEART和GRACE评分。纳入的研究在ED出现时应用了两种评分,报告了30天MACE(死亡、心肌梗死、紧急血运重建术),并为2 × 2列联表提供了数据。采用双变量随机效应模型计算合并敏感性、特异性、似然比(PLR/NLR)、诊断优势比和曲线下面积(AUC)。通过I2统计评估异质性,亚组分析探讨变异的来源。结果:共纳入19项研究(14862例患者)。HEART评分的敏感性(0.96,95% CI: 0.94-0.98 vs. 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91;比值:1.09[1.05-1.14])显著高于GRACE评分,负似然比(NLR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17 vs. 0.42, 95% CI: 0.39-0.46)显著低于GRACE评分。与GRACE相比,HEART的特异性较低(0.50,95% CI: 0.41-0.60) (0.61, 95% CI: 0.58-0.64),而GRACE的特异性更高。HEART也具有更好的判别能力(AUC: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84 vs. 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75;比值:1.11[1.07-1.15])。亚组分析证实了HEART在不同地理区域和年龄组的敏感性方面的优势,特别是在东部人群中(敏感性比:1.57[1.27-1.93])。结论:HEART评分在急性胸痛患者30天MACE的敏感性和排除能力(较低NLR)方面优于GRACE,支持其在低风险个体安全出院方面的应用。GRACE的高特异性可能有助于识别需要干预的高危病例。肌钙蛋白测定和MACE定义的标准化对未来的实施至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Herz
Herz 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Herz is the high-level journal for further education for all physicians interested in cardiology. The individual issues of the journal each deal with specific topics and comprise review articles in English and German written by competent and esteemed authors. They provide up-to-date and comprehensive information concerning the speciality dealt with in the issue. Due to the fact that all relevant aspects of the pertinent topic of an issue are considered, an overview of the current status and progress in cardiology is presented. Reviews and original articles round off the spectrum of information provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信