Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the available evidence to determine the accuracy of decision aids for emergency medical services (EMS) telephone triage of patients with chest pain suspected to be caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or life-threatening conditions. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were performed in Embase 1974, Medline 1946 and CINAHL 1937 databases from 3 March 2020 to 4 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included all types of original studies that included adult patients (>18 years) who called EMS with a primary complaint of chest pain and evaluated dispatch triage priority by telephone. Outcomes of interest were a final diagnosis of ACS, acute myocardial infarction or other life-threatening conditions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted data on study design, population, study period, outcome and all data for assessment of accuracy, including cross-tabulation of triage priority against the outcomes of interest. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 assessment tool. RESULTS: Searches identified 553 papers, of which 3 were eligible for inclusion. Those reports described the evaluation of three different prediction models with variation in the variables used to detect ACS. The overall results showed that dispatch triage tools have good sensitivity to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions, even though they are used to triage signs and symptoms rather than diagnosing the patients. On the other hand, prediction models were built to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions, and therefore, prediction models showed better sensitivity and negative predictive value than dispatch triage tools. CONCLUSION: We have identified three prediction models for telephone triage of patients with chest pain. While they have been found to have greater accuracy than standard EMS dispatch systems, prospective external validation is essential before clinical use is considered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This systematic review was pre-registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (reference CRD42020171184).