Comparison of HEAR and HEART Scores for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events

Background: Early identification of patients with low and high risk for acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED) is important for process management and proper resource use. The aim of this study was to compare the HEAR and HEART scores to determine the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over 30 days. Methods: Demographic data and clinical evaluations of the patients who presented to the ED with chest pain were recorded. ECGs were evaluated without knowing the clinical status of the patients. The HEART (including history, ECG, age, coronary risk factors, and troponin level) and HEAR (including four items with no troponin) risk scores were calculated. MACE was defined as all MI, all coronary revascularization procedures (PCI and CABG), all-cause death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias within 30 days. Patients with MACE were evaluated as Group 1, and patients without MACE were considered as Group 2, and the data from the two groups were compared. Results: A total of 230 patients were included in the study. There were 56 (24.3%) patients with MACEs. According to the ROC analysis, the threshold value was determined as <= 3 for both scoring systems. According to this threshold value, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 0.77 and 0.78 for the HEAR score and 0.82 and 0.77 for the HEART score. Conclusions: Although the HEAR and HEART scoring systems are useful for the management of patients with chest pain in the ED, the HEART score was evaluated to be more effective.