Syncope: Assessment of risk and an approach to evaluation in the emergency department and urgent care clinic

Syncope is among the most frequent forms of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC), and is characterized by a relatively brief and self-limited loss of consciousness that by definition is triggered by transient cerebral hypoperfusion. Most often, syncope is caused by a temporary drop of systemic arterial pressure below that required to maintain cerebral function, but brief enough not to cause permanent structural brain injury. Currently, approximately one-third of syncope/collapse patients seen in the emergency department (ED) or urgent care clinic are admitted to hospital for evaluation. The primary objective of developing syncope/TLOC risk stratification schemes is to provide guidance regarding the immediate prognostic risk of syncope patients presenting to the ED or clinic; thereafter, based on that risk assessment physicians may be better equipped to determine which patients can be safely evaluated as outpatients, and which require hospital care. In general, the need for hospitalization is determined by several key issues: i) the patient''s immediate (usually considered 1 week to 1 month) mortality risk and risk for physical injury (e.g., falls risk), ii) the patient''s ability to care for him/herself, and iii) whether certain treatments inherently require in-hospital initiation (e.g., pacemaker implantation). However, at present no single risk assessment protocol appears to be satisfactory for universal application, and development of a consensus recommendation is an essential next step.     

Characteristics of chest pain in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

IntroductionPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with chest pain. However, the characteristics of this chest pain are unknown. We performed a single-centre observational study to review and summarise chest pain characteristics in COVID-19 patients at first presentation to the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe collected data on characteristics of ‘chest pain’ reported by COVID-19 patients who attended the ED of Bernhoven Hospital, the Netherlands from 4 through 30 March 2020.ResultsWe included 497 COVID-19 patients, of whom 83 (17%) reported chest pain upon presentation to the ED. Chest pain characteristics were: present since disease onset (88%), retrosternal location (43%), experienced as compressing/pressure pain (61%), no radiation (61%) and linked to heavy coughing (39%). Patients who reported chest pain were younger than those without chest pain (61 vs 73 years; p < 0.001). Patients with syncope were older (75 vs 72 years; p = 0.017), had a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p < 0.001) and reported fewer respiratory complaints (68% vs 90%; p < 0.001) than those without syncope. Patients with new-onset atrial arrhythmias presented with a shorter duration of symptoms (5 vs 7 days; p = 0.013), experienced fewer respiratory complaints (72% vs 89%; p = 0.012) and more frequently had a history of cardiovascular disease (79% vs 50%; p = 0.003) than patients who presented without arrythmias.ConclusionChest pain and other cardiac symptoms were frequently observed in COVID-19 patients. Treating physicians should be aware that chest pain, arrhythmias and syncope can be presenting symptoms of COVID-19.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01730-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Performance of a simplified HEART score and HEART-GP score for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care

BackgroundChest pain is a common symptom in urgent primary care. The distinction between urgent and non-urgent causes can be challenging. A modified version of the HEART score, in which troponin is omitted (‘simplified HEART’) or replaced by the so-called ‘sense of alarm’ (HEART-GP), may aid in risk stratification.MethodThis study involved a retrospective, observational cohort of consecutive patients evaluated for chest pain at a large-scale, out-of-hours, regional primary care facility in the Netherlands, with 6‑week follow-up for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The outcome of interest is diagnostic accuracy, including positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).ResultsWe included 664 patients; MACEs occurred in 4.8% (n = 32). For  simplified HEART and HEART-GP, we found C‑statistics of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85–0.95), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for a simplified HEART score ≥2 (PPV 9%, NPV 99.7%), HEART-GP score ≥3 (PPV 11%, NPV 99.7%) and HEART-GP score ≥4 (PPV 16%, NPV 99.4%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 MACEs. A simplified HEART score ≥2 would have picked up 5 cases, at the expense of 332 referrals (50.0%, p < 0.001). A HEART-GP score of ≥3 and ≥4 would have detected 5 and 3 MACEs and led to 293 (44.1%, p < 0.001) and 186 (28.0%, p = 0.18) referrals, respectively.ConclusionHEART-score modifications including the physicians’ ‘sense of alarm’ may be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain in primary care in the absence of routine access to troponin assays. Further validation is warranted.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01529-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The value of the ECG for decision-making at first medical contact in the patient with acute chest pain

Background/Objectives. Rapid risk stratification of the patient with acute chest pain is essential to select the best management. We investigated the value of the ECG at first medical contact to determine size of the ischaemic myocardial area and thereby severity of risk. Methods. In 386 patients with acute chest pain, ECG findings were correlated with the coronary angiogram. Using ST-segment deviation patterns the location of the coronary culprit lesion was predicted and thereby size of the area at risk. Four groups of patients were present. Those with a narrow QRS and a total 12-lead ST-segment deviation score of ≥5 mm (group 1) or ≤4 mm (group 2); a QRS width of ≥120 ms (group 3), and patients with previous coronary bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (group 4). Results. Correct coronary culprit lesion localisation was possible in 84% of the 185 patients in group 1, 40% of the total cohort. Accurate prediction was not possible in most patients in groups 2, 3 and 4, in spite of extensive coronary artery disease in group 3 and 4. Conclusions. Using the 12-lead ECG the size of the myocardial area at risk can be accurately predicted when the total ST-segment deviation score is ≥5 mm, allowing identification of those in need of a PCI. In most patients with bundle branch block, previous CABG or PCI, the ECG can not localise the culprit lesion. This approach simplifies and accelerates decision-making at first medical contact. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:301-6.)     

Addition of heart score to high-sensitivity troponin T versus conventional troponin T in risk stratification of patients with chest pain at the coronary emergency rooms

Patients with chest pain have a large impact on available resources in coronary emergency rooms (CER). Clinical judgement, ECG, risk scores and biomarkers guide in risk stratification. We investigated if high-sensitivity troponin T (HsT) and the HEART Score could contribute to risk stratification at the CER. All patients with chest pain, without elevated conventional troponin levels at presentation, were included. HsT levels were determined at admission (T1), at 4–6 h (T2) and 8–10 h after symptom onset (T3). The HEART Score was calculated as risk score for the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Thirty days after discharge, occurrence of MACE was registered. Eighty-nine patients were included (overall mean age 61 years (range 20–90)). At presentation, 68 patients (76 %) had a HsT below cut-off value of 14 ng/l (mean HEART Score 3.7, range 1–9). Thirty-one of these 68 patients had a HEART Score between 1–3, no MACE occurred in this group. For 3 patients (4 %) HsT levels increased above 14 ng/l. These 3 patients had a HEART Score between 4–6. The majority of patients with chest pain can be safely discharged within 4–6 h after onset of symptoms using HsT and the HEART Score. In contrast, patients with initially normal HsT but a high HEART Score need longer follow-up and repeat HsT determination.     

Addition of FFRct in the diagnostic pathway of patients with stable chest pain to reduce unnecessary invasive coronary angiography (FUSION): Rationale and design for the multicentre,randomised, controlled FUSION trial

BackgroundCoronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is widely used in the diagnostic work-up of patients with stable chest pain. CCTA has an excellent negative predictive value, but a moderate positive predictive value for detecting coronary stenosis. Computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFRct) is a non-invasive, well-validated technique that provides functional assessment of coronary stenosis, improving the positive predictive value of CCTA. However, to determine the value of FFRct in routine clinical practice, a pragmatic randomised, controlled trial (RCT) is required. We will conduct an RCT to investigate the impact of adding FFRct analysis in the diagnostic pathway of patients with a coronary stenosis on CCTA on the rate of unnecessary invasive coronary angiography, cost-effectiveness, quality of life and clinical outcome.MethodsThe FUSION trial is a prospective, multicentre RCT that will randomise 528 patients with stable chest pain and anatomical stenosis of ≥ 50% but < 90% in at least one coronary artery of ≥ 2 mm on CCTA, to FFRct-guided care or usual care in a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up will be 1 year. The primary endpoint is the rate of unnecessary invasive coronary angiography within 90 days.ConclusionThe FUSION trial will evaluate the use of FFRct in stable chest pain patients from the Dutch perspective. The trial is funded by the Dutch National Health Care Institute as part of the research programme ‘Potentially Promising Care’ and the results will be used to assess if FFRct reimbursement should be included in the standard health care package.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01711-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.