Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026
Author Spotlight: Unveiling Prognostic Indicators in Heart Failure - The Role of Phase Angle and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
Published on: June 30, 2023
A comparative analysis of risk stratification tools for emergency department patients with chest pain
Ellen Burkett, Thomas Marwick, Ogilvie Thom
1School of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. anne-maree.kelly@wh.org.au.
Insights
The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS) and Goldman risk score outperformed the Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA) tool for predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in emergency department chest pain patients.
Area of Science:
- Emergency Medicine
- Cardiology
- Clinical Risk Assessment
Background:
- Effective risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients presenting with chest pain is crucial for appropriate patient disposition.
- Several risk stratification tools exist, but their comparative performance in undifferentiated ED chest pain populations requires evaluation.
- This study compares the predictive performance of three established risk assessment tools for major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the predictive performance of the National Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA) risk assessment tool, the Goldman risk score, and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS) for MACE in ED patients with chest pain.
Main Methods:
- A prospective observational study involving 281 adult patients (≥30 years) presenting to the ED with non-traumatic chest pain and no clear non-ischemic cause.
- Data collected included demographics, clinical information, and investigation findings.
- The primary outcome was the occurrence of MACE within 30 days, analyzed using receiver operator curves (ROC) to compare the predictive performance of the risk tools.
Main Results:
- The overall rate of MACE in the study population was 14.1%.
- The Area Under the Curve (AUC) for MACE prediction was 0.54 for HFA, 0.71 for TIMI RS, and 0.67 for the Goldman score.
- The differences in predictive ability among the tools were statistically significant (chi2(3) = 67.21, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions:
- The TIMI RS and Goldman risk score demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to the HFA tool in this ED chest pain cohort.
- Challenges were encountered in selecting optimal cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity for all evaluated tools.
- There is a critical need for the development and validation of risk stratification tools specifically designed for the ED chest pain population.
Background:
Appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain is dependent on clinical evaluation of risk. A number of chest pain risk stratification tools have been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using risk assessment tools from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA), the Goldman risk score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS).
Methods:
This prospective observational study evaluated ED patients aged ≥30 years with non-traumatic chest pain for which no definitive non-ischemic cause was found. Data collected included demographic and clinical information, investigation findings and occurrence of MACE by 30 days. The outcome of interest was the comparative predictive performance of the risk tools for MACE at 30 days, as analyzed by receiver operator curves (ROC).
Results:
Two hundred eighty-one patients were studied; the rate of MACE was 14.1%. Area under the curve (AUC) of the HFA, TIMI RS and Goldman tools for the endpoint of MACE was 0.54, 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, with the difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE being highly significant [chi2 (3) = 67.21, N = 276, p < 0.0001].
Conclusion:
The TIMI RS and Goldman tools performed better than the HFA in this undifferentiated ED chest pain population, but selection of cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity was problematic. There is an urgent need for validated risk stratification tools specific for the ED chest pain population.
More Related Videos
06:16Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
Related Concept Videos
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
01:29Angina III: Clinical Manifestations and Assessment
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:25Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
01:29Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
01:26Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History: