preHEART评分的外部验证以及与目前用于疑似NSTE-ACS患者院前风险评估的临床风险评分的比较。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Jesse P A Demandt, Arjan Koks, Dennis Sagel, Rutger Haest, Eric Heijmen, Eric Thijssen, Mohamed El Farissi, Rob Eerdekens, Pim van der Harst, Marcel van 't Veer, Lukas Dekker, Pim Tonino, Pieter J Vlaar
{"title":"preHEART评分的外部验证以及与目前用于疑似NSTE-ACS患者院前风险评估的临床风险评分的比较。","authors":"Jesse P A Demandt, Arjan Koks, Dennis Sagel, Rutger Haest, Eric Heijmen, Eric Thijssen, Mohamed El Farissi, Rob Eerdekens, Pim van der Harst, Marcel van 't Veer, Lukas Dekker, Pim Tonino, Pieter J Vlaar","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05243485.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"610-616"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.\",\"authors\":\"Jesse P A Demandt, Arjan Koks, Dennis Sagel, Rutger Haest, Eric Heijmen, Eric Thijssen, Mohamed El Farissi, Rob Eerdekens, Pim van der Harst, Marcel van 't Veer, Lukas Dekker, Pim Tonino, Pieter J Vlaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2023-213866\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05243485.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"610-616\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213866\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213866","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:紧急医疗服务(EMS)研究表明,使用临床风险评分和床旁肌钙蛋白(POC)可改善疑似非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征(NSTE-ACS)患者的院前风险分层和分流决策。在目前的急救服务研究中,对疑似 NSTE-ACS 患者使用了三种不同的临床风险评分:院前病史、心电图、年龄、风险和肌钙蛋白(preHEART)评分、病史、心电图、年龄、风险和肌钙蛋白(HEART)评分以及仅肌钙蛋白的曼彻斯特急性冠脉综合征(T-MACS)评分。preHEART 评分缺乏外部验证,也没有对院前环境中的不同风险评分进行前瞻性比较分析。本分析旨在对 preHEART 评分进行外部验证,并比较这三种临床风险评分和 POC-troponin 的诊断性能:方法:一项前瞻性、多中心、队列研究的预设分析,对象是 2021 年 4 月至 2022 年 12 月期间在荷兰被送往急诊室的疑似 NSTE-ACS 患者。急救人员使用preHEART、HEART、T-MACS和POC-troponin进行风险分层。主要终点是医院对 NSTE-ACS 的诊断。诊断结果以接收者操作特征下面积(AUROC)、灵敏度、特异性、阴性预测值(NPV)和阳性预测值(PPV)表示:共有823名患者接受了preHEART评分的外部验证,29%的患者(235人)最终被医院诊断为NSTE-ACS。preHEART评分将27%的患者归类为低风险,灵敏度为92.8%(95% CI 88.7至95.7),NPV为92.3%(95% CI 88.3至95.1)。preHEART 将 9% 的患者归类为高风险,特异性为 98.5%(95% CI 97.1 至 99.3),PPV 为 87.7%(95% CI 78.3 至 93.4)。有 316 例患者的临床风险评分和 POC-troponin 数据可供比较。预HEART评分与HEART评分之间未发现差异(AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85),p=0.19),两者均优于T-MACS(AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively)和单独的POC-肌钙蛋白测量(AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), pConclusion.与T-MACS(AUROC 0:经外部验证,作为院前风险分层工具,preHEART 具有良好的整体诊断性能。与 T-MACS 和单一的 POC-troponin 测量相比,preHEART 和 HEART 分数都具有更好的整体诊断性能。这些数据支持在院前临床路径中实施临床风险评分:NCT05243485.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

Background: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin.

Methods: Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV).

Results: A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively).

Conclusion: On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways.

Trial registration number: NCT05243485.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信