AIM To test accuracy and reproducibility of gestalt to predict obstructive coronary artery disease(CAD)in patients with acute chest pain.METHODS We studied individuals who were consecutively admitted to our Chest Pain...AIM To test accuracy and reproducibility of gestalt to predict obstructive coronary artery disease(CAD)in patients with acute chest pain.METHODS We studied individuals who were consecutively admitted to our Chest Pain Unit.At admission,investigators performed a standardized interview and recorded14 chest pain features.Based on these features,a cardiologist who was blind to other clinical characteristics made unstructured judgment of CAD probability,both numerically and categorically.As the reference standard for testing the accuracy of gestalt,angiography was required to rule-in CAD,while either angiography or non-invasive test could be used to rule-out.In order to assess reproducibility,a second cardiologist did the same procedure.RESULTS In a sample of 330 patients,the prevalence of obstructive CAD was 48%.Gestalt’s numerical probability was associated with CAD,but the area under the curve of0.61(95%CI:0.55-0.67)indicated low level of accuracy.Accordingly,categorical definition of typical chest pain had a sensitivity of 48%(95%CI:40%-55%)and specificity of 66%(95%CI:59%-73%),yielding a negligible positive likelihood ratio of 1.4(95%CI:0.65-2.0)and negative likelihood ratio of 0.79(95%CI:0.62-1.02).Agreement between the two cardiologists was poor in the numerical classification(95%limits of agreement=-71%to 51%)and categorical definition of typical pain(Kappa=0.29;95%CI:0.21-0.37).CONCLUSION Clinical judgment based on a combination of chest pain features is neither accurate nor reproducible in predicting obstructive CAD in the acute setting.展开更多
BACKGROUND Timely and accurate identification of subgroup at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events among patients presenting with acute chest pain remains a challenge.Currently available risk stratification sco...BACKGROUND Timely and accurate identification of subgroup at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events among patients presenting with acute chest pain remains a challenge.Currently available risk stratification scores are suboptimal.Recently,a new scoring system called the Symptoms,history of Vascular disease,Electrocardiography,Age,and Troponin(SVEAT)score has been shown to outperform the History,Electrocardiography,Age,Risk factors and Troponin(HEART)score,one of the most used risk scores in the United States.AIM To assess the potential usefulness of the SVEAT score as a risk stratification tool by comparing its performance to HEART score in chest pain patients with low suspicion for acute coronary syndrome and admitted for overnight observation.METHODS We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 330 consecutive patients admitted to our clinical decision unit for acute chest pain between January 1st to April 17th,2019.To avoid potential biases,investigators assigned to calculate the SVEAT,and HEART scores were blinded to the results of 30-d combined endpoint of death,acute myocardial infarction or confirmed coronary artery disease requiring revascularization or medical therapy[30-d major adverse cardiovascular event(MACE)].An area under receiving-operator characteristic curve(AUC)for each score was then calculated.C-statistic and logistic model were used to compare RESULTS A 30-d MACE was observed in 11 patients(3.33%of the subjects).The AUC of SVEAT score(0.8876,95%CI:0.82-0.96)was significantly higher than the AUC of HEART score(0.7962,95%CI:0.71-0.88),P=0.03.Using logistic model,SVEAT score with cut-off of 4 or less significantly predicts 30-d MACE(odd ratio 1.52,95%CI:1.19-1.95,P=0.001)but not the HEART score(odd ratio 1.29,95%CI:0.78-2.14,P=0.32).CONCLUSION The SVEAT score is superior to the HEART score as a risk stratification tool for acute chest pain in low to intermediate risk patients.展开更多
文摘AIM To test accuracy and reproducibility of gestalt to predict obstructive coronary artery disease(CAD)in patients with acute chest pain.METHODS We studied individuals who were consecutively admitted to our Chest Pain Unit.At admission,investigators performed a standardized interview and recorded14 chest pain features.Based on these features,a cardiologist who was blind to other clinical characteristics made unstructured judgment of CAD probability,both numerically and categorically.As the reference standard for testing the accuracy of gestalt,angiography was required to rule-in CAD,while either angiography or non-invasive test could be used to rule-out.In order to assess reproducibility,a second cardiologist did the same procedure.RESULTS In a sample of 330 patients,the prevalence of obstructive CAD was 48%.Gestalt’s numerical probability was associated with CAD,but the area under the curve of0.61(95%CI:0.55-0.67)indicated low level of accuracy.Accordingly,categorical definition of typical chest pain had a sensitivity of 48%(95%CI:40%-55%)and specificity of 66%(95%CI:59%-73%),yielding a negligible positive likelihood ratio of 1.4(95%CI:0.65-2.0)and negative likelihood ratio of 0.79(95%CI:0.62-1.02).Agreement between the two cardiologists was poor in the numerical classification(95%limits of agreement=-71%to 51%)and categorical definition of typical pain(Kappa=0.29;95%CI:0.21-0.37).CONCLUSION Clinical judgment based on a combination of chest pain features is neither accurate nor reproducible in predicting obstructive CAD in the acute setting.
文摘BACKGROUND Timely and accurate identification of subgroup at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events among patients presenting with acute chest pain remains a challenge.Currently available risk stratification scores are suboptimal.Recently,a new scoring system called the Symptoms,history of Vascular disease,Electrocardiography,Age,and Troponin(SVEAT)score has been shown to outperform the History,Electrocardiography,Age,Risk factors and Troponin(HEART)score,one of the most used risk scores in the United States.AIM To assess the potential usefulness of the SVEAT score as a risk stratification tool by comparing its performance to HEART score in chest pain patients with low suspicion for acute coronary syndrome and admitted for overnight observation.METHODS We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 330 consecutive patients admitted to our clinical decision unit for acute chest pain between January 1st to April 17th,2019.To avoid potential biases,investigators assigned to calculate the SVEAT,and HEART scores were blinded to the results of 30-d combined endpoint of death,acute myocardial infarction or confirmed coronary artery disease requiring revascularization or medical therapy[30-d major adverse cardiovascular event(MACE)].An area under receiving-operator characteristic curve(AUC)for each score was then calculated.C-statistic and logistic model were used to compare RESULTS A 30-d MACE was observed in 11 patients(3.33%of the subjects).The AUC of SVEAT score(0.8876,95%CI:0.82-0.96)was significantly higher than the AUC of HEART score(0.7962,95%CI:0.71-0.88),P=0.03.Using logistic model,SVEAT score with cut-off of 4 or less significantly predicts 30-d MACE(odd ratio 1.52,95%CI:1.19-1.95,P=0.001)but not the HEART score(odd ratio 1.29,95%CI:0.78-2.14,P=0.32).CONCLUSION The SVEAT score is superior to the HEART score as a risk stratification tool for acute chest pain in low to intermediate risk patients.
