TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of risk scores for coronary artery disease
T2 - A retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain in urgent primary care
AU - Kleton, Michelle
AU - Manten, Amy
AU - Smits, Iris
AU - Rietveld, Remco
AU - Lucassen, Wim A. M.
AU - Harskamp, Ralf E.
N1 - Funding Information: Funding Funding for the TRACE study was provided by a grant from the Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Research Institute (ACS-2018-TRACE-22254), a grant from ZonMw-HGOG (project number: 839150004), and internal funding from the department of general practice of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location AMC, the Netherlands. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2021/12/1
Y1 - 2021/12/1
N2 - Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care. Design Retrospective, cohort study. Setting Regional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands. Participants Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain. Main outcome measures Discriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact. Results A total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates. Conclusion While available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.
AB - Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care. Design Retrospective, cohort study. Setting Regional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands. Participants Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain. Main outcome measures Discriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact. Results A total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates. Conclusion While available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.
KW - Coronary heart disease
KW - Ischaemic heart disease
KW - Myocardial infarction
KW - Primary care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122198091&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045387
DO - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045387
M3 - Article
C2 - 34880006
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 11
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 12
M1 - e045387
ER -