Аннотация
Background/Objectives: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major cause of cardiovascular mortality, and emergency medical service (EMS) crews often make the first decision on whether an IHD-coded patient should be transported to hospital or managed at the scene. Evidence from Central Asian EMS systems is sparse, and it remains unclear whether routinely coded comorbidity information adds decision-relevant information beyond acute presentation. We aimed to identify predictors of the EMS hospitalization/transport decision among IHD calls in Astana, Kazakhstan. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective call-level cohort study of 9985 consecutive EMS calls coded as IHD (ICD-10 I20-I25) over a five-year period. The endpoint was field disposition—hospitalization/transport versus being left at the scene—and should not be interpreted as confirmed ACS, mortality, clinical appropriateness or any other patient outcome. Group comparisons used the Mann–Whitney U and Pearson chi-square tests, and independent associations were estimated using explanatory multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, 2676 calls (26.8%) resulted in hospitalization/transport. The strongest independent predictors were cardiogenic shock (aOR 15.06), acute/unstable IHD versus chronic I25 (aOR 8.52) and heart failure (aOR 2.46). Other arrhythmias (aOR 1.84), atrial fibrillation (aOR 1.60), male sex (aOR 1.65) and age <45 years (aOR 1.88) were also associated with higher transport odds, whereas age ≥75 years (aOR 0.61), specialized crews (aOR 0.84) and high dispatch urgency (categories 1–2; aOR 0.84) were associated with lower odds. Model discrimination was moderate (AUC 0.69; optimism-corrected AUC 0.69), plausibly reflecting the absence of ECG findings, vital signs, symptom severity and hospital outcome data. Conclusions: The expected acuity markers dominated EMS transport decisions, but routinely coded cardiac comorbidities were independently associated with disposition in this understudied setting. The model is not deployable for individual triage; these variables should be considered candidate inputs for future models that incorporate richer clinical data, outcome linkage and prospective validation.