Background
Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis powered by artificial intelligence (AI) offers a rapid, non-invasive, and objective approach for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk stratification in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and impact of aiTriage™, an AI HRV-guided tool for chest pain triage, compared with standard care.
Methods
In this single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 560 ED patients with suspected ACS underwent 5- minute ECG monitoring for HRV analysis, which generated a 0–100 risk score and triage recommendations (high, medium, or low risk). Patients were randomized to standard care (control) or an HRV-guided protocol (intervention). Physicians in the control group were blinded to HRV results.
Results
Of 426 analysed patients (mean age 54 ± 13 years, 35% female, 16.2% prior MI), the HRV-guided protocol reduced hospital admissions (50.2% vs 61.1%; risk difference -10.9 percentage points, 95% CI: -20.1 to -1.8) and serial cardiac enzyme testing (32.1% vs 41.7%; risk difference -9.6 percentage points, 95% CI: -18.4 to -0.9) compared with standard care. Among discharged patients, the median ED length of stay was 20 minutes shorter in the intervention group (95% CI: -45 minutes to 3 minutes). The overall 30-day MACE rate was 9.5%, with no events among discharged patients.
Conclusion
A rapid AI HRV-guided risk stratification tool was feasible to deploy, and has potential to reduce serial cardiac enzyme testing, ED LOS and hospital admissions. An adequately powered RCT is needed to confirm these findings and assess clinical safety. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07074808).
Objective This study aimed to clarify the relative prognostic value of each History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score component for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 3 months and validate the modified HEART (mHEART) score.
Methods This study evaluated the HEART score components for patients with chest symptoms visiting the emergency department from November 19, 2018 to November 19, 2019. All components were evaluated using logistic regression analysis and the scores for HEART, mHEART, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) were determined using the receiver operating characteristics curve.
Results The patients were divided into a derivation (809 patients) and a validation group (298 patients). In multivariate analysis, age did not show statistical significance in the detection of MACE within 3 months and the mHEART score was calculated after omitting the age component. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for HEART, mHEART and TIMI scores in the prediction of MACE within 3 months were 0.88, 0.91, and 0.83, respectively, in the derivation group; and 0.88, 0.91, and 0.81, respectively, in the validation group. When the cutoff value for each scoring system was determined for the maintenance of a negative predictive value for a MACE rate >99%, the mHEART score showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (97.4%, 54.2%, 23.7%, and 99.3%, respectively).
Conclusion Our study showed that the mHEART score better detects short-term MACE in high-risk patients and ensures the safe disposition of low-risk patients than the HEART and TIMI scores.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Reassessing risk stratification in the ED: HEART, HET, SVEAT, and the emerging role of HASI Hsih-Hao Huang, Chien-Chieh Hsieh, Fu-Shan Jaw, Che-Ming Yeh The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.2025; 96: 278. CrossRef
Chest Pain Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department: Current Perspectives Zeynep Yukselen, Vidit Majmundar, Mahati Dasari, Pramukh Arun Kumar, Yuvaraj Singh Open Access Emergency Medicine.2024; Volume 16: 29. CrossRef
Performance of the EDACS-ADP incorporating high-sensitivity troponin assay: Do components of major adverse cardiac events matter? Yedalm Yoo, Shin Ahn, Bora Chae, Won Young Kim World Journal of Emergency Medicine.2024; 15(3): 175. CrossRef
Adapting the HEART Pathway for Korean Patients: The Potential Impact on Chest Pain Management at Emergency Department Hack-Lyoung Kim Korean Circulation Journal.2023; 53(9): 645. CrossRef
Computed tomography coronary angiography after excluding myocardial infarction: high-sensitivity troponin versus risk score-guided approach Won Jae Yoo, Shin Ahn, Bora Chae, Won Young Kim World Journal of Emergency Medicine.2023; 14(6): 428. CrossRef
Erratum to “Validation and modification of HEART score components for patients with chest pain in the emergency department” Min Jae Kim, Sang Ook Ha, Young Sun Park, Jeong Hyeon Yi, Won Seok Yang, Jin Hyuck Kim Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine.2022; 9(4): 386. CrossRef
Objective The history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, troponin (HEART), the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores are useful risk stratification tools in the emergency department (ED). However, the accuracy of these scores in the cancer population is not well known. This study aimed to compare the performance of cardiac risk stratification scores in cancer patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the ED.
Methods This prospective cohort study recruited patients with cancer who visited the ED because of suspected ACS. The development of any major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks was recorded, with the study outcome being a MACE within 6 weeks of ED admission.
Results A total of 178 patients participated in this study, of whom 5.6% developed a MACE. Statistically significant differences were found between the mean HEART and TIMI scores in predicting MACE. The HEART score had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.81), highest sensitivity (80%), and highest negative predictive value (97.5) in patients with cancer.
Conclusion We found a similar rate of MACE in cancer patients with low-risk chest pain compared to that in the general population. However, the HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores had a lower performance in cancer patients with MACE compared to that in the general population.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Increased cardiovascular risk among cancer survivors presenting with chest pain Kobi Faierstein, Rotem Tal-Ben Ishay, Ranel Loutati, Lynn Idan, Ido Cohen, Tal Caller, Yaacov R Lawrence, Roy Raphael, Yovel Peretz, Dana Fourey, Haim Mayan, Noya Shilo, Amit Segev, Elad Maor, Joerg Herrmann European Heart Journal Open.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department: Exploring the Role of Social, Healthcare-system, and Clinical Determinants Abdullah Kürşat Işik, İbrahim Ulaş Özturan, Murat Pekdemir, Nurettin Özgür Doğan, Elif Yaka, Serkan Yilmaz Critical Pathways in Cardiology: A Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine.2023; 22(4): 128. CrossRef
Relation of CHA2DS2 -VASc score with severity and complexity of coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction Muhammed Raşit TANIRCAN, İbrahim Ulaş ÖZTURAN, Nihat ŞEN Acta Medica Nicomedia.2022; 5(3): 136. CrossRef
Objective Rapid determination of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) is very important for patients presenting with ischemic symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of HEART score for ACS and significant coronary artery stenosis (SCS).
Methods We retrospectively analyzed data of patients who visited the ED with chest discomfort and were admitted to the cardiology department. Enrolled patients were classified into ACS and non-ACS groups according to their discharge diagnosis. Patients who underwent imaging were further divided into SCS and non-SCS groups according to study results. We compared age, sex, vital signs, risk factors, electrocardiogram, troponin, and HEART score for each group. For ACS and SCS predictive performance, the test characteristics of HEART score was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, likelihood ratio, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
Results Of 207 patients, 112 had ACS. Among enrolled patients, 155 underwent imaging workup, of whom 67 had SCS. HEART score ≤3 had 93% sensitivity for ACS and 97% for SCS. HEART score ≥7 had 82% specificity for ACS and 83% for SCS. HEART score area under ROC curve for ACS was 0.706 (95% confidence interval, 0.627–0.776) and 0.737 (95% confidence interval, 0.660–0.804) for SCS.
Conclusion HEART score was a fair predictor of ACS and SCS in ED patients who presented with chest symptoms and were admitted to the cardiology department. The predictive power of HEART score was better for SCS than for ACS.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Diagnostic Accuracy Improvement of an Updated HEART Score to Predict Coronary Artery Disease as Detected by Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Michele Della Rocca, Stefano Ferdico, Nicola Cosentino, Alice Bonomi, Andrea Baggiano, Manuela Muratori, Saima Mushtaq, Laura Salvini, Matteo Biroli, Edona Leka, Gianluca Pontone, Marco Grazi, Emilio Assanelli Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(4): 1424. CrossRef
Retrospective analysis of the performance of the PROMISE minimal risk tool for patients presenting with recent onset stable chest pain Conor Tuffs, Natasha Khullar, Terry Levy, Vivek Kodoth, Rosie Swallow, Peter O’Kane, Jehangir Din, Chun Shing Kwok, Nick Curzen, Jonathan Hinton Open Heart.2026; 13(1): e003837. CrossRef
Predictive Performance of the HEART Score for Acute Coronary Syndrome with Significant Coronary Stenosis in Patients with Non–ST-Elevation Acute Chest Pain André Martins, Mónica Amado, Adriana Vazão, Joana Pereira, Luís Santos, Margarida Cabral, Célia Domingues, David Durão, João Morais Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease.2026; 13(7): 335. CrossRef
A Cross-Sectional Study on the Relationship between the HEART Score and the Severity of CAD using the SYNTAX Score in Patients with NSTEMI Admitted to the Emergency Department: A Study from Turkey MS Pepele, I Aktas, O Demiroz, S Derya, E Yildirim, MN Bilen, B Demir Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.2025; 28(6): 758. CrossRef
Role of HEART score in prediction of coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting with chest pain Tanja Stojkovic, Eva Stojkovic, Dejan Sakac, Aleksandar Redzek, Anastazija Stojsic-Milosavljevic, Lazar Velicki, Biljana Parapid Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo.2022; 150(3-4): 149. CrossRef
Nicola Parenti, Giuseppe Lippi, Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani, Antonio Luciani, Mario Cavazza, Antonello Pietrangelo, Alberto Vegetti, Lucio Brugioni, Laura Bonfanti, Gianfranco Cervellin
Clin Exp Emerg Med 2019;6(3):212-217. Published online September 30, 2019
Objective To rapidly and safely identify the risk of developing acute coronary syndrome in patients with chest pain who present to the emergency department, the clinical use of the History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) scoring has recently been proposed. This study aimed to assess the inter-rater reliability of the HEART score calculated by a large number of Italian emergency physicians.
Methods The study was conducted in three academic emergency departments using clinical scenarios obtained from medical records of patients with chest pain. Twenty physicians, who took the HEART score course, independently assigned a score to different clinical scenarios, which were randomly administered to the participants, and data were collected and recorded in a spreadsheet by an independent investigator who was blinded to the study’s aim.
Results After applying the exclusion criteria, 53 scenarios were finally included in the analysis. The general inter-rater reliability was good (kappa statistics [κ], 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.70), and a good inter-rater agreement for the high- and low-risk classes (HEART score, 7 to 10 and 0 to 3, respectively; κ, 0.60 to 0.73) was observed, whereas a moderate agreement was found for the intermediate-risk class (HEART score, 4 to 6; κ, 0.51). Among the different items of the HEART score, history and electrocardiogram had the worse agreement (κ, 0.37 and 0.42, respectively).
Conclusion The HEART score had good inter-rater reliability, particularly among the high- and low-risk classes. The modest agreement for history suggests that major improvements are needed for objectively assessing this component.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Evaluating the Efficacy of CPS, HEART and TIMI Score in Emergency Department Patients with Non-Traumatic Chest Pain: A Pilot Study Pietro Pozzessere, Mattia Di Lauro, Francesco Incantalupo, Alessandro Cinquantasei, Stefano Palazzo, Mario Erminio Lepera, Antonella Pistone, Sandra De Matteis, Marco Matteo Ciccone, Vincenzo Brescia, Roberto Lovero, Marcello Albanesi, Angela Pia Cazzolla Medical Sciences.2026; 14(1): 151. CrossRef
Natural Language Processing for Risk Stratification of Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain Reza Valimoradi, George Cao, Allen Ding, Cristian Toarta, Seung Ho Lee, David Le Nguyen, Alexandra Wudwud, Preeti Gupta, Phuong Anh (Iris) Nguyen, Bahareh Ghaedi, Jonathan Yu-Meng Li, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy CJC Open.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Unlocking the Potential of the HEART Pathway: Predicting MACE and Facilitating Nurse–Physician Collaboration in Chest Pain Unit Zahra Behpour, Zahra Amirsardari, Haniye Aghakhani, Mohammadesmaeil Zanganehfar, Shiva Khaleghparast, Fidan Shabani, Hooman Bakhshandeh, Parham Sadeghipour Critical Pathways in Cardiology: A Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine.2025; 24(1): e0374. CrossRef
Automated computation of the HEART score with the GPT-4 large language model Donald S. Wright, Vimig Socrates, Thomas Huang, Conrad W. Safranek, Rohit B. Sangal, Monisha Dilip, Zachary Boivin, Nickolas Srica, Catherine X. Wright, Attila Feher, Edward J. Miller, David Chartash, Richard Andrew Taylor The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.2025; 93: 120. CrossRef
Adequately identifying low-risk chest pain in emergency primary care: evaluating the performance of preHEAR(T) based on two European cohorts Tonje R Johannessen, Indra M B Melessen, Odd Martin Vallersnes, Amy Manten, Sigrun Halvorsen, Dan Atar, Ralf E Harskamp Open Heart.2025; 12(2): e003362. CrossRef
Evaluation of Providers' Assessment of Clinical History When Using the HEART Score in the Emergency Department in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study Shrooq M Hawati, Fares Binobaid, Asmaa Alsaeigh, Walaa Alameer, Rawan M Almontashri, Adhwa Qari, Ghalia Maghrabi Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Influence of Patient and Clinician Gender on Emergency Department HEART Scores: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Trial Rebecca Barron, Timothy J. Mader, Alexander Knee, Donna Wilson, Jeannette Wolfe, Seth R. Gemme, Stacey Dybas, William E. Soares Annals of Emergency Medicine.2024; 83(2): 123. CrossRef
Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians Nancy W. P. L. van der Waarden, G. Sander de Wolf, Kirsten F. van Meerten, Barbra E. Backus Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal.2024; 46(1): 49. CrossRef
Review of Methods for the Detection of Allergens in Novel Food Alternative Proteins Helen Grundy, M. Rosario Romero, Lucy C. Brown, Marc Parker FSA Research and Evidence.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Performance analysis considering endpoints for three accelerated diagnostic protocols for chest pain Bora Chae, Shin Ahn, Seung Mok Ryoo, Youn-Jung Kim, Dong-Woo Seo, Chang Hwan Sohn, Won Young Kim The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.2023; 64: 51. CrossRef
Interrater agreement of the HEART score history component: A chart review study Alec J. Pawlukiewicz, Matthew R. Geringer, W. Tyler Davis, Daniel R. Nassery, Michael D. April, Matthew J. Streitz, Jessica M. Hyams, Alex W. Martin, Sadie A. Martin, Joshua J. Oliver JACEP Open.2022; 3(3): e12732. CrossRef
Evaluation of Provider Assessment of Clinical History When Using the HEART Score Ravindra Gopaul, Robert A Waller, Ricci Kalayanamitra, Garrett Rucker, Andrew Foy Open Access Emergency Medicine.2022; Volume 14: 421. CrossRef
Predicting mortality with cardiac troponins: recent insights from meta-analyses Giuseppe Lippi, Gianfranco Cervellin, Fabian Sanchis-Gomar Diagnosis.2021; 8(1): 37. CrossRef
A Methodological Appraisal of the HEART Score and Its Variants Steven M. Green, David L. Schriger Annals of Emergency Medicine.2021; 78(2): 253. CrossRef
Scoring systems for the triage and assessment of short-term cardiovascular risk in patients with acute chest pain Nicklaus P. Ashburn, James C. O’Neill, Jason P. Stopyra, Simon A. Mahler Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Ken Monahan, Margaret Pan, Chinonso Opara, Maame Yaa A. B. Yiadom, Daniel Munoz, Benjamin B. Holmes, Davis Stephen, Kristopher J. Swiger, Sean P. Collins
Clin Exp Emerg Med 2019;6(3):196-203. Published online July 12, 2019
Objective Bedside consultation by cardiologists may facilitate safe discharge of selected patients from the emergency department (ED) even when admission is recommended by the History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) pathway. If bedside evaluation is unavailable, phone consultation between emergency physicians and cardiologists would be most impactful if the resultant disposition is discordant with the HEART pathway. We therefore evaluate discordance between actual disposition and that suggested by the HEART pathway in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain for whom cardiology consultation occurred exclusively by phone and to assess the impact of phone-consultation on disposition.
Methods We performed a single-center, retrospective study of adults presenting to the ED with chest pain whose emergency physician had a phone consultation with a cardiologist. Actual disposition was abstracted from the medical record. HEART pathway category (low-risk, discharge; high-risk, admit) was derived from ED documentation. For discharged patients, major adverse cardiac events were assessed at 30 days by chart review and phone follow-up.
Results For the 170 patients that had cardiologist phone consultation, discordance between actual disposition and the HEART pathway was 17%. The HEART pathway recommended admission for nearly 80% of discharged patients. Following cardiologist phone-consultation, 10% of high-risk patients were discharged, with the majority having undergone a functional study recommended by the cardiologist. At 30 days, discharged patients had experienced no episodes of major adverse cardiac events or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons.
Conclusion For patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, cardiology phone-consultation has the potential to safely impact disposition, primarily by facilitating functional testing in high-risk individuals.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Telecardiology in the Management of Acute Cardiovascular Diseases: Case of the Ivorian Experience LA Gnaba, KF Diby, PAE Ouattara, A Coulibaly, M Diomandé, KG Ayegnon, F Sall-Meneas, MN Koffi, S Abro, E Erika, KA Adoubi The Journal of Medical Research.2023; 9(6): 147. CrossRef
Joonghee Kim, Joon-Won Kang, Kyuseok Kim, Sang Il Choi, Eun Ju Chun, Yeo Goon Kim, Won Young Kim, Dong Woo Seo, Jonghwan Shin, Huijai Lee, Kwang-Nam Jin, Soyeon Ahn, Seung Sik Hwang, Kwang Pyo Kim, Ru-Bi Jeong, Sang Ook Ha, Byungho Choi, Chang-Hwan Yoon, Jung-Won Suh, Hack-Lyoung Kim, Ju Kyoung Kim, Sujin Jang, Ji Seon Seo
Clin Exp Emerg Med 2017;4(4):208-213. Published online December 30, 2017
Objective Chest pain is one of the most common complaints in the emergency department (ED). Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a frequently used tool for the early triage of patients with low- to intermediate-risk acute chest pain. We present a study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled clinical trial testing the hypothesis that a low-dose CCTA protocol using prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggering and limited-scan range can provide sufficient diagnostic safety for early triage of patients with acute chest pain.
Methods The trial will include 681 younger adult (aged 20 to 55) patients visiting EDs of three academic hospitals for acute chest pain or equivalent symptoms who require further evaluation to rule out acute coronary syndrome. Participants will be randomly allocated to either low-dose or conventional CCTA protocol at a 2:1 ratio. The low-dose group will undergo CCTA with prospective ECG-triggering and restricted scan range from sub-carina to heart base. The conventional protocol group will undergo CCTA with retrospective ECG-gating covering the entire chest. Patient disposition is determined based on computed tomography findings and clinical progression and all patients are followed for a month. The primary objective is to prove that the chance of experiencing any hard event within 30 days after a negative low-dose CCTA is less than 1%. The secondary objectives are comparisons of the amount of radiation exposure, ED length of stay and overall cost.
Results and Conclusion Our low-dose protocol is readily applicable to current multi-detector computed tomography devices. If this study proves its safety and efficacy, dose-reduction without purchasing of expensive newer devices would be possible.
Spinal cord infarction is a rare condition and is easily misdiagnosed owing to its initial non-specific manifestation. We report a case of a 77–year-old man who presented with chest pain and upper back pain initially, and was misdiagnosed with a myocardial infarction. Four hours after admission, he complained of numbness in his entire left leg below the knee, with rapid deterioration of neurological symptoms. After 9 hours, loss of sensation progressed up to the T4 dermatome, strength of both lower extremities deteriorated to grade 0, and decrease in anal tone and deep tendon reflex was observed. Initial magnetic resonance imaging findings were normal; however, a signal change occurred 3 days after symptom onset. When patients present with acute chest pain and neurologic symptoms, the possibility of ischemic cardiac disease as well as any neurological manifestations must be investigated. Emergency physicians must remember the value of serial physical examinations.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Analysis of the causes of late diagnosis of vascular myelopathy G.V. Ponomarev, Yu.S. Vaganova, A.V. Amelin, A.A. Skoromets S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry.2025; 125(9): 117. CrossRef
Spinal Cord Infarction Mistaken for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Case Report Bo Kyung Jeon, In Sook Kang Journal of Cardiovascular Intervention.2024; 3(1): 29. CrossRef
Spontaneous spinal cord infarction: a systematic review Maria Gharios, Vasilios Stenimahitis, Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Omar Ali Mahdi, Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Pascal Jabbour, Magnus Andersson, Claes Hultling, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Erik Edström BMJ Neurology Open.2024; 6(1): e000754. CrossRef
Long-term Outcomes After Periprocedural and Spontaneous Spinal Cord Infarctions Vasilios Stenimahitis, Alexander Fletcher-Sandersjöö, Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Claes Hultling, Magnus Andersson, Olafur Sveinsson, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Erik Edström Neurology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical Spinal Cord Infarction Presenting as Chest Pain in Patients with Acute Cerebellar Infarction Yong-Won Kim, Yang-Ha Hwang Journal of the Korean Neurological Association.2020; 38(1): 42. CrossRef
Objective Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is useful for evaluation of acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Though the test needs proper interpretation by someone with expertise in cardiovascular imaging, the critical nature of the information the test provides frequently lead emergency physicians (EPs) to act on their own interpretation. We performed this study to assess how often EPs’ interpretations are in agreement with radiologists’.
Methods This study is a prospective observational study. The target population was patients assessed with CCT for acute chest pain or discomfort. EPs with at least one year CCT experience underwent a one-hour training session before study participation. The most significant lesion, if any, in each arterial segment was assessed for coronary stenosis and plaque calcification. The agreement between EPs’ and radiologists’ interpretation was assessed with Cohen’s kappa and Gwet’s AC1.
Results One hundred and three patients were enrolled and 412 segments were analyzed. Stenosis grading was identical in 363 segments (88.1%) and the interrater agreement was good (kappa=0.6439, AC1=0.8810). Similarly, the plaque calcification grading was identical in 354 segments (86.6%) and the kappa and AC1 values were 0.5660 and 0.8501, respectively. EPs classified 6 of the 17 arterial segments with significant stenosis reported by radiologists as non-significant stenosis (n=5) or clear (n=2), all of which were proved to be significant by following subsequent invasive coronary angiography.
Conclusion There was substantial discordance of CCT interpretation between EPs and radiologists. For now, EPs need more education prior to independent CCT reading.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Comparison of abdominal ct interpretation levels of emergency physicians and radiologists Kasim Turgut Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi.2019; 5(2): 1482. CrossRef
First
Prev
