Search

Background: The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is a widely used tool to triage patients in emergency departments. The ESI tool is used to assess all complaints and has significant limitation for accurately triaging patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Objective: We evaluated the accuracy of ESI in predicting serious outcomes in suspected ACS and aimed to assess the incremental reclassification performance if ESI is supplemented with a clinically validated tool used to risk-stratify suspected ACS., Methods: We used existing data from an observational cohort study of patients with chest pain. We extracted ESI scores documented by triage nurses during routine medical care. Two independent reviewers adjudicated the primary outcome, incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiac events. We compared ESI with the well-established modified HEAR/T (patient History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, but without Troponin) score., Results: Our sample included 750 patients (age, 59 ± 17 years; 43% female; 40% black). A total of 145 patients (19%) experienced major adverse cardiac event. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for ESI score for predicting major adverse cardiac event was 0.656, compared with 0.796 for the modified HEAR/T score. Using the modified HEAR/T score, 181 of the 391 false positives (46%) and 16 of the 19 false negatives (84%) assigned by ESI could be reclassified correctly., Conclusion: The ESI score is poorly associated with serious outcomes in patients with suspected ACS. Supplementing the ESI tool with input from other validated clinical tools can greatly improve the accuracy of triage in patients with suspected ACS.

Emergency department (ED) nurses need to identify patients with potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS) rapidly because treatment delay could impact patient outcomes. Aims of this secondary analysis were to identify key patient factors that could be available at initial ED nurse triage that predict ACS. Consecutive patients with chest pain who called 9-1-1, received a 12-lead electrocardiogram in the prehospital setting, and were transported via emergency medical service were included in the study. A total of 750 patients were recruited. The sample had an average age of 59 years old, was 57% male, and 40% Black. One hundred and fifteen patients were diagnosed with ACS. Older age, non-Caucasian race, and faster respiratory rate were independent predictors of ACS. There was an interaction between heart rate by Type II diabetes receiving insulin in the context of ACS. Type II diabetics requiring insulin for better glycemic control manifested a faster heart rate. By identifying patient factors at ED nurse triage that could be predictive of ACS, accuracy rates of triage may improve, thus impacting patient outcomes., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Appropriate prehospital (PH) triage of patients with chest pain can significantly improve outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to explore how PH providers triage chest pain as high versus low risk and to evaluate the accuracy and predictors of their triage decision., Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study that enrolled consecutive patients with chest pain transported by emergency medical services (EMS) to 3 tertiary care hospitals in the US. EMS triage decision (high risk versus low-risk) was defined based on the transmission of PH electrocardiogram (ECG) to a command center for medical consultation with or without catheter laboratory activation. Two independent reviewers examined in-hospital medical records to adjudicate the presence of acute MI and to audit the findings on the presenting ECG., Results: We enrolled 2,065 patients (aged 56 ± 17, 53% male) of whom 768 (37%) were triaged as high risk. Those triaged as high risk were older, were more likely to be men or have significant cardiac history, and had a higher rate of acute MI events (14.2% versus 3.5%). The sensitivity and specificity for triaging MI events as high risk were 70% and 97%, respectively. A total of 46/155 (30%) MI events were misclassified as low risk. No previous coronary revascularization and ECG misinterpretation were strong independent predictors of such undertriage., Conclusions: PH providers have moderate sensitivity in triaging high-risk patients; 1 in 3 MI events are undertriaged. Emergency nurses need to pay special attention to patients with benign past histories during transition of care and should always reinterpret ECGs for subtle ischemic changes., (Copyright © 2018 Emergency Nurses Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: HEART score is widely used to stratify patients with chest pain in the emergency department but has never been validated for cocaine-associated chest pain (CACP). We sought to evaluate the performance of HEART score in risk stratifying patients with CACP compared to an age- and sex-matched cohort with non-CACP.Methods: The parent study was an observational cohort study that enrolled consecutive patients with chest pain. We identified patients with CACP and age/sex matched them to patients with non-CACP in 1:2 fashion. HEART score was calculated retrospectively from charts. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days of indexed encounter.Results: We included 156 patients with CACP and 312 age-and sex-matched patients with non-CACP (n = 468, mean age 51 ± 9, 22% females). There was no difference in rate of MACE between the groups (17.9% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.54). Compared to the non-CACP group, the HEART score had lower classification performance in those with CACP (AUC = 0.68 [0.56-0.80] vs. 0.84 [0.78-0.90], p = 0.022). In CACP group, Troponin score had the highest discriminatory value (AUC = 0.72 [0.60-0.85]) and Risk factors score had the lowest (AUC = 0.47 [0.34-0.59]). In patients deemed low-risk by the HEART score, those with CACP were more likely to experience MACE (14% vs. 4%, OR = 3.7 [1.3-10.7], p = 0.016).Conclusion: In patients with CACP, HEART score performs poorly in stratifying risk and is not recommended as a rule out tool to identify those at low risk of MACE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]