Performance of EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE, and HEART Scores in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Early diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome is critical for timely intervention. While risk scores like HEART are well-validated, they require biomarkers and ECG, potentially delaying triage decisions. History-based scores (EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE) enable immediate assessment, but their comparative ED performance remains unclear. This study evaluated their diagnostic accuracy versus HEART for predicting 1-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED chest pain patients. This prospective multicenter observational study enrolled adults with chest pain presenting to EDs between January and August 2025. Clinical data were collected at presentation to calculate EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE, and HEART scores without influencing clinical management. The primary outcome was 1-month MACE (acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, or death). Predictive accuracy was assessed using ROC analysis and DeLong pairwise comparisons. Independent MACE predictors were identified through multivariable logistic regression. Among 335 patients (mean age 54.5 ± 15.2 years; 58.5% male), MACE occurred in 51 (15.2%). AUC values were 0.864 (HEART), 0.829 (EDACS), 0.801 (INTERCHEST), and 0.785 (SCARE). EDACS and INTERCHEST performed comparably to HEART, while SCARE showed lower performance. EDACS demonstrated highest sensitivity (88.2%) and NPV (96.8%); INTERCHEST had highest specificity (85.9%). Independent predictors included age, diaphoresis, exertional pain, radiation patterns, clinician concern, and patient-perceived cardiac etiology. EDACS and INTERCHEST scores achieved diagnostic performance comparable to HEART score, while SCARE score demonstrated lower accuracy. History-based risk scores enable immediate risk stratification without laboratory testing, potentially informing triage decisions regarding low-risk patients and high-risk patients requiring closer observation while optimizing resource allocation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journal
Published
2025-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44411-025-00469-y
Primary Topic
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE, and HEART Scores in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

İbrahim Altundağ, Yasin Sağlam, Şefik Meriç Uysal, Mehmet Taylan Koçer
Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journal
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
article

Performance of EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE, and HEART Scores in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

İbrahim Altundağ, Yasin Sağlam, Şefik Meriç Uysal, Mehmet Taylan Koçer
article en

Abstract

Early diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome is critical for timely intervention. While risk scores like HEART are well-validated, they require biomarkers and ECG, potentially delaying triage decisions. History-based scores (EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE) enable immediate assessment, but their comparative ED performance remains unclear. This study evaluated their diagnostic accuracy versus HEART for predicting 1-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED chest pain patients. This prospective multicenter observational study enrolled adults with chest pain presenting to EDs between January and August 2025. Clinical data were collected at presentation to calculate EDACS, INTERCHEST, SCARE, and HEART scores without influencing clinical management. The primary outcome was 1-month MACE (acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, or death). Predictive accuracy was assessed using ROC analysis and DeLong pairwise comparisons. Independent MACE predictors were identified through multivariable logistic regression. Among 335 patients (mean age 54.5 ± 15.2 years; 58.5% male), MACE occurred in 51 (15.2%). AUC values were 0.864 (HEART), 0.829 (EDACS), 0.801 (INTERCHEST), and 0.785 (SCARE). EDACS and INTERCHEST performed comparably to HEART, while SCARE showed lower performance. EDACS demonstrated highest sensitivity (88.2%) and NPV (96.8%); INTERCHEST had highest specificity (85.9%). Independent predictors included age, diaphoresis, exertional pain, radiation patterns, clinician concern, and patient-perceived cardiac etiology. EDACS and INTERCHEST scores achieved diagnostic performance comparable to HEART score, while SCARE score demonstrated lower accuracy. History-based risk scores enable immediate risk stratification without laboratory testing, potentially informing triage decisions regarding low-risk patients and high-risk patients requiring closer observation while optimizing resource allocation.

Bratislavské lekárske listy/Bratislava medical journalVol. 127(3)
Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University (TR), Directorate of Health (IS), Haydarpaşa Numune Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi (TR), Ordu University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.