TIMI score requires “Severe angina (≥2 episodes in 24 hrs)” to give you one point.If you have 20 years of DM2 with A1C of 15 and severely uncontrolled HTN/HLD, you get zero points! Only 3 magically count. TIM score only gives a point if you have ≥ 3 CAD risk factors.If you are a 64-year-old male, you get zero points! Being 64 is not a risk factor, but being 65 and up is the only time it counts! The TIMI score “is quite rough as it allows only binary choices, thus ignoring the fact that many variables have a ‘grey area'” the HEART score and see how true the critique of the TIMI score underlined above is. International Journal of Cardiology, Volume 168, Is– 2158. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. The HEART score facilitates risk stratification of chest pain patients in the ED.” Curr Cardiol Rev. The HEART score was validated in a retrospective multicenter study and proved to be a strong predictor of event-free survival on one hand and potentially life-threatening cardiac events on the other hand. The more recently developed HEART score is specifically designed to stratify all chest pain patients in the ED. An evidence-based systematic stratification and policy for these patients does not currently exist. The vast majority of patients with chest pain due to causes other than ACS were not evaluated in these trials. However, none of these risk scores has been used in the identification of an ACS in the emergency setting. “ The PURSUIT, TIMI, GRACE and FRISC risk scores are well validated with this respect. Risk Scores for Patients with Chest Pain: Evaluation in the Emergency Department. Backus B., Six A., Kelder J., Gibler W., Moll F., Doevendans P. The PURSUIT score is outdated as it was designed before the introduction of troponin assays for clinical use.”Ģ. The TIMI score is simple to calculate, but it is quite rough as it allows only binary choices, thus ignoring the fact that many variables have a ‘grey area’. The major disadvantage of the GRACE score is that it can only be calculated with the use of the internet. The TIMI and PURSUIT scores were designed to identify high-risk patients, who are most likely to benefit from aggressive therapy. These classical scoring systems do not show much interest in the differentiation of chest pain patients who are at low to moderate risk for an adverse outcome. The most reputed are the TIMI, PURSUIT and GRACE risk scores, which were compared by De Araújo Gonçalves. Despite the firm scientific basis for all three scoring systems and the recommendations in guidelines, none is widely applied in clinical practice. “In the literature, several risk scores for nSTE-ACS have been published. Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the HEART score. It takes everybody who comes to the ER with chest pain and helps you risk stratify them to determine how to work them up.ġ. All these patients by today’s standards (and in the original studies) have to already be anticoagulated with heparin or enoxaparin. The whole idea is that these patients already have to be diagnosed with NSTE-ACS, i.e. The conclusion of the abstract reads, “In patients with UA/NSTEMI, the TIMI risk score is a simple prognostication scheme that categorizes a patient’s risk of death and ischemic events and provides a basis for therapeutic decision making.” JAMA. 2000 Aug 16 284(7):835-42 The 3 validation cohorts were the unfractionated heparin group from ESSENCE and both enoxaparin groups.” JAMA. 2000 Aug 16 284(7):835-42 The article says, ” A total of 1957 patients with UA/NSTEMI were assigned to receive unfractionated heparin (test cohort) and 1953 to receive enoxaparin in TIMI 11B 15 were assigned respectively in ESSENCE. The TIMI studies were done in only ACS patients (UA/NSTEMI) patients. The TIMI score was designed to identify high-risk patients, not intermediate or low-risk patients. TIMI score only predicts a 2-week all-cause mortality, new or recurrent MI, or severe recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization.ĭifferent Patient Populations, Different Purposes The HEART score predicts the 6-week risk of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). says, “Newer chest pain risk scores such as the HEART Score have been shown to better stratify risk than the TIMI Score, particularly in the undifferentiated chest pain patient.” Click here and scroll to bullet point 3 under the advice section. Many Emergency Medicine doctors prefer HEART score. Studies that show HEART Score is better than TIMI.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |