Evaluation of the Practice Guideline Used for Rule-Out of Myocardial Infarction at a Tertiary Cardiology Center. Issue 4 (14th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sheikh Sharbafan, Reza; Farrokhpour, Hossein; Keykhaei, Mohammad; Rashedi, Sina; Foroumadi, Roham; Mehrani, Mehdi; Tajdini, Masih
• Is Part Of: Critical pathways in cardiology. Volume 21:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 183
• Page End: 190
• Publication Date: 2022-10-14
• Subjects: acute myocardial infarction -- primary care -- emergency medicine -- MACE; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; Medical protocols -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000300
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1535-282X

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: With the current high burden on the healthcare system and limited resources, the efficient utilization of facilities is of utmost importance. We sought to present the practice guideline used at a high prevalence tertiary cardiology center and compare its safety and efficacy performance with the single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T strategy, conventional and modified HEART score. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain or an angina equivalent were recruited. The primary endpoints consisted of major adverse cardiac events at index visits and 30-day follow-up. Patients were managed according to the practice guideline, and sensitivity and negative predictive values were compared. Results: Of the total 1548 patients, the mean age was 50.4 ± 15.7 years. Ninety-nine (10.9%) patients were admitted at the index visit, and 89 patients were consequently diagnosed with acute coronary symptoms. Six (0.007%) patients experienced major adverse cardiac events within the 30-day follow-up among discharged patients. Among 911 patients with at least 1 troponin, using single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, HEART score, and modified HEART score would have further admitted 805, 450, and 609 patients, respectively. The negative predictive value for all 4 algorithms did not significantly differ (99.2% vs. 100% vs. 99.3% vs. 99.6%, respectively). Conclusions: The Tehran Herat Center protocol was a relatively safe protocol with high efficacy. Despite the high safety of the other diagnostic pathways, the high volume of patients needing additional evaluation could impose a high burden on the health care system.