Cost analysis of the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin (HEART) Pathway randomized control trial

Use of downstream stress imaging tests for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and low HEART score

BACKGROUND

Patients with low HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin level) risk scores who are discharged from the emergency department (ED) may present clinical challenges and diagnostic dilemmas. The use of downstream non-invasive stress imaging (NISI) tests in this population remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the value of NISI in risk stratification and predicting cardiac events in patients with low-risk HEART scores (LRHSs).

METHODS

We prospectively included 1384 patients with LRHSs between March 2019 and March 2021. All the patients underwent NISI (involving myocardial perfusion imaging/stress echocardiography). The primary endpoints included cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and unplanned coronary revascularisation. Secondary endpoints encompassed cardiovascular-related admissions or ED visits.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 64±14 years, with 670 (48.4%) being women. During the 634±104 days of follow-up, 58 (4.2%) patients experienced 62 types of primary endpoints, while 60 (4.3%) developed secondary endpoints. Multivariable Cox models, adjusted for clinical and imaging variables, showed that diabetes (HR: 2.38; p=0.008), HEART score of 3 (HR: 1.32; p=0.01), history of coronary artery disease (HR: 2.75; p=0.003), ECG changes (HR: 5.11; p<0.0001) and abnormal NISI (HR: 16.4; p<0.0001) were primary endpoint predictors, while abnormal NISI was a predictor of secondary endpoints (HR: 3.05; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

NISI significantly predicted primary cardiac events and cardiovascular-related readmissions/ED visits in patients with LRHSs.

Deep learning augmented ECG analysis to identify biomarker-defined myocardial injury

Chest pain is a common clinical complaint for which myocardial injury is the primary concern and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. To aid providers' decision-making, we aimed to analyze the electrocardiogram (ECG) using a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict serum troponin I (TnI) from ECGs. We developed a CNN using 64,728 ECGs from 32,479 patients who underwent ECG within 2 h prior to a serum TnI laboratory result at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). In our primary analysis, we classified patients into groups of TnI < 0.02 or ≥ 0.02 µg/L using 12-lead ECGs. This was repeated with an alternative threshold of 1.0 µg/L and with single-lead ECG inputs. We also performed multiclass prediction for a set of serum troponin ranges. Finally, we tested the CNN in a cohort of patients selected for coronary angiography, including 3038 ECGs from 672 patients. Cohort patients were 49.0% female, 42.8% white, and 59.3% (19,283) never had a positive TnI value (≥ 0.02 µg/L). CNNs accurately predicted elevated TnI, both at a threshold of 0.02 µg/L (AUC = 0.783, 95% CI 0.780-0.786) and at a threshold of 1.0 µg/L (AUC = 0.802, 0.795-0.809). Models using single-lead ECG data achieved significantly lower accuracy, with AUCs ranging from 0.740 to 0.773 with variation by lead. Accuracy of the multi-class model was lower for intermediate TnI value-ranges. Our models performed similarly on the cohort of patients who underwent coronary angiography. Biomarker-defined myocardial injury can be predicted by CNNs from 12-lead and single-lead ECGs.

Rural and socioeconomic differences in the effectiveness of the HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway is a validated accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) for patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of the HEART Pathway based on patient rurality (rural vs. urban) or socioeconomic status (SES).

METHODS

We performed a preplanned subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study. The primary outcomes were death or myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization at 30 days. Proportions were compared by SES and rurality with Fisher's exact tests. Logistic regression evaluated for interactions of ADP implementation with SES or rurality and changes in outcomes within subgroups.

RESULTS

Among 7245 patients with rurality and SES data, 39.9% (2887/7245) were rural and 22.2% were low SES (1607/7245). The HEART Pathway identified patients as low risk in 32.2% (818/2540) of urban versus 28.1% (425/1512) of rural patients (p = 0.007) and 34.0% (311/915) of low SES versus 29.7% (932/3137) high SES patients (p = 0.02). Among low-risk patients, 30-day death or MI occurred in 0.6% (5/818) of urban versus 0.2% (1/425) rural (p = 0.67) and 0.6% (2/311) with low SES versus 0.4% (4/932) high SES (p = 0.64). Following implementation, 30-day hospitalization was reduced by 7.7% in urban patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.87), 10.6% in low SES patients (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), and 4.5% in high SES patients (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94). However, rural patients had a nonsignificant 3.3% reduction in hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

HEART Pathway implementation decreased 30-day hospitalizations regardless of SES and for urban patients but not rural patients. The 30-day death or MI rate was similar among low-risk patients.

A Machine Learning-Based Applied Prediction Model for Identification of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) Outcomes and Mortality in Patients during the Hospital Stay

Nowadays, machine learning (ML) is a revolutionary and cutting-edge technology widely used in the medical domain and health informatics in the diagnosis and prognosis of cardiovascular diseases especially. Therefore, we propose a ML-based soft-voting ensemble classifier (SVEC) for the predictive modeling of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) outcomes such as STEMI and NSTEMI, discharge reasons for the patients admitted in the hospitals, and death types for the affected patients during the hospital stay. We used the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR-NIH) dataset, which has 13,104 patients' data containing 551 features. After data extraction and preprocessing, we used the 125 useful features and applied the SMOTETomek hybrid sampling technique to oversample the data imbalance of minority classes. Our proposed SVEC applied three ML algorithms, such as random forest, extra tree, and the gradient-boosting machine for predictive modeling of our target variables, and compared with the performances of all base classifiers. The experiments showed that the SVEC outperformed other ML-based predictive models in accuracy (99.0733%), precision (99.0742%), recall (99.0734%), F1-score (99.9719%), and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) (99.9702%). Overall, the performance of the SVEC was better than other applied models, but the AUC was slightly lower than the extra tree classifier for the predictive modeling of ACS outcomes. The proposed predictive model outperformed other ML-based models; hence it can be used practically in hospitals for the diagnosis and prediction of heart problems so that timely detection of proper treatments can be chosen, and the occurrence of disease predicted more accurately.

Electrophysiology practice in low- and middle-income countries: An updated review on access to care and health delivery

Concurrent with the epidemiological transition to cardiovascular diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of arrhythmias is increasing significantly. However, registries of electrophysiological disorders and their management in LMICs are limited. The advancement of telemedicine technology can play a distinctive role in providing accurate diagnoses in resource-limited settings. The estimated pacemaker implantation requirements (1 million per year) demand an alternate source of pacemakers, including reused permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. In addition, the majority of supraventricular tachycardias and atrial fibrillation can be managed with radiofrequency ablation, which not only is cost-effective but is curative for most patients.

Exosomal Composition, Biogenesis and Profiling Using Point-of-Care Diagnostics—Implications for Cardiovascular Disease

Arteriosclerosis is an important age-dependent disease that encompasses atherosclerosis, in-stent restenosis (ISR), pulmonary hypertension, autologous bypass grafting and transplant arteriosclerosis. Endothelial dysfunction and the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cell (vSMC)-like cells is a critical event in the pathology of arteriosclerotic disease leading to intimal-medial thickening (IMT), lipid retention and vessel remodelling. An important aspect in guiding clinical decision-making is the detection of biomarkers of subclinical arteriosclerosis and early cardiovascular risk. Crucially, relevant biomarkers need to be good indicators of injury which change in their circulating concentrations or structure, signalling functional disturbances. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanosized membraneous vesicles secreted by cells that contain numerous bioactive molecules and act as a means of intercellular communication between different cell populations to maintain tissue homeostasis, gene regulation in recipient cells and the adaptive response to stress. This review will focus on the emerging field of EV research in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and discuss how key EV signatures in liquid biopsies may act as early pathological indicators of adaptive lesion formation and arteriosclerotic disease progression. EV profiling has the potential to provide important clinical information to complement current cardiovascular diagnostic platforms that indicate or predict myocardial injury. Finally, the development of fitting devices to enable rapid and/or high-throughput exosomal analysis that require adapted processing procedures will be evaluated.

Practice and Evaluation of a Protocol for Collating Information Related to the Emergency Clinical Pathway for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a common acute and critical disease that requires rapid treatment within a limited window of time. In this study, we attempt to introduce a clinical pathway for the whole-process management of emergency STEMI based on the creation of a specific information system that matches the characteristics of emergency clinical work and evaluates their clinical value by quality control analysis. We deployed this system for 3 years and found that complications, heart failure, and medical costs during hospitalization were significantly reduced (p = 0.019) in patients with STEMI. By analyzing each link in the clinical pathway, our research indicates the clear clinical importance of developing methods to continuously improve data quality. Collectively, out research led to the optimization of an information system that will facilitate the clinical management of patients with STEMI.

Referral decisions based on a pre-hospital HEART score in suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: final results of the FamouS Triage study

AIMS

Although pre-hospital risk stratification of patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) by ambulance paramedics is feasible, it has not been investigated in daily practice whether referral decisions based on this risk stratification is safe and does not increase major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In Phase III of the FamouS Triage study, it was investigated whether referral decisions by ambulance paramedics based on a pre-hospital HEART score, is non-inferior to routine management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

FamouS Triage Phase III is a non-inferiority study, comparing the occurrence of MACE before (Phase II) and after (Phase III) implementation of referral decisions based on a pre-hospital HEART score. In Phase II, all patients were risk-stratified and referred to the hospital; in Phase III, low-risk patients (HEART score ≤ 3) were not referred. Primary endpoint was MACE (acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, or death) within 45 days. A total of 1236 patients were included. Mean age was 63 years, 43% were female, 700 patients were included in the second phase and 536 in the third phase in which 149 low-risk patients (28%) were not transferred to the hospital. Occurrence of 45 days MACE was 16.6% in Phase II and 15.7% in Phase III (P = 0.67). Percentage MACE in low-risk patients was 2.9% in Phase II and 1.3% in Phase III. After adjustments for differences in baseline variables, the hazard ratio of 45 days MACE in Phase III was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.25) as compared to Phase II.

CONCLUSION

Pre-hospital risk stratification of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS, avoiding hospitalization of a substantial number of low-risk patients, seems feasible and non-inferior to transferring all patients to the hospital.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Scoring systems for the triage and assessment of short-term cardiovascular risk in patients with acute chest pain

Acute chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint. Evaluating patients for acute coronary syndrome is challenging because missing the diagnosis carries substantial morbidity, mortality, and medicolegal consequences. However, over-testing is associated with increased cost, overcrowding, and possible iatrogenic harm. Over the past two decades, multiple risk scoring systems have been developed to help emergency providers evaluate patients with acute chest pain. The ideal risk score balances safety by achieving high sensitivity and negative predictive value for major adverse cardiovascular events while also being effective in identifying a large proportion of patients for early discharge from the ED. This review examines contemporary risk scores used to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Graded Coronary Risk Stratification for Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain: A Controlled Cohort Study

Background Resource utilization among emergency department (ED) patients with possible coronary chest pain is highly variable. Methods and Results Controlled cohort study amongst 21 EDs of an integrated healthcare system examining the implementation of a graded coronary risk stratification algorithm (RISTRA-ACS [risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome]). Thirteen EDs had access to RISTRA-ACS within the electronic health record (RISTRA sites) beginning in month 24 of a 48-month study period (January 2016 to December 2019); the remaining 8 EDs served as contemporaneous controls. Study participants had a chief complaint of chest pain and serum troponin measurement in the ED. The primary outcome was index visit resource utilization (observation unit or hospital admission, or 7-day objective cardiac testing). Secondary outcomes were 30-day objective cardiac testing, 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 60-day MACE-CR (MACE excluding coronary revascularization). Difference-in-differences analyses controlled for secular trends with stratification by estimated risk and adjustment for risk factors, ED physician and facility. A total of 154 914 encounters were included. Relative to control sites, 30-day objective cardiac testing decreased at RISTRA sites among patients with low (≤2%) estimated 60-day MACE risk (-2.5%, 95% CI -3.7 to -1.2%, P<0.001) and increased among patients with non-low (>2%) estimated risk (+2.8%, 95% CI +0.6 to +4.9%, P=0.014), without significant overall change (-1.0%, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1%, P=0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in index visit resource utilization, 60-day MACE or 60-day MACE-CR. Conclusions Implementation of RISTRA-ACS was associated with better allocation of 30-day objective cardiac testing and no change in index visit resource utilization or 60-day MACE. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Three Cases of Emergency Department Medical Malpractice Involving "Consultations": How Is Liability Legally Determined?

This article presents three successfully litigated medical malpractice cases involving emergency physicians and consultants. We discuss the respective case medical diagnoses, as well as established legal principles that determine in a court proceeding which provider will be liable. Specifically, we explain the legal principles of “patient physician relationship” and “affirmative act.”

Sex and race differences in safety and effectiveness of the HEART pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol for acute chest pain

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway is an accelerated diagnostic protocol for Emergency Department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. The objective was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the HEART Pathway among women vs men and whites vs non-whites.

METHODS

A subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study was conducted. Adults with chest pain were accrued from November 2013 to January 2016 from 3 Emergency Departments in North Carolina. The primary outcomes were death and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days. Logistic regression evaluated for interactions of accelerated diagnostic protocol implementation with sex or race and changes in outcomes within subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 8,474 patients were accrued, of which 53.6% were female and 34.0% were non-white. The HEART Pathway identified 32.6% of females as low-risk vs 28.5% of males (P = 002) and 35.6% of non-whites as low-risk vs 28.0% of whites (P < .0001). Among low-risk patients, death or MI at 30 days occurred in 0.4% of females vs 0.5% of males (P = .70) and 0.5% of non-whites vs 0.3% of whites (P = .69). Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6.6% in females (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.85), 5.1% in males (aOR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75-1.02), 8.6% in non-whites (aOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60-0.86), and 4.5% in whites (aOR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.94). Interactions were not significant.

CONCLUSION

Women and non-whites are more likely to be classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway. HEART Pathway implementation is associated with decreased hospitalizations and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients regardless of sex or race.

HEART Pathway Implementation Safely Reduces Hospitalizations at One Year in Patients With Acute Chest Pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine whether implementation of the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin) Pathway is safe and effective in emergency department (ED) patients with possible acute coronary syndrome through 1 year of follow-up.

METHODS

A preplanned analysis of 1-year follow-up data from a prospective pre-post study of 8,474 adult ED patients with possible acute coronary syndrome from 3 US sites was conducted. Patients included were aged 21 years or older, evaluated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation, from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or nonlow risk (appropriate for further inhospital evaluation). Safety (all-cause death and myocardial infarction) and effectiveness (hospitalization) at 1 year were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data.

RESULTS

Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3,713 and 4,761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% of patients as low risk; 97.5% of them were free of death and myocardial infarction within 1 year. Hospitalization at 1 year was reduced by 7.0% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (62.1% versus 69.1%; adjusted odds ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.78). Rates of death or myocardial infarction at 1 year were similar (11.6% versus 12.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.16).

CONCLUSION

HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations and low adverse event rates among low-risk patients at 1-year follow-up.

Referral decisions based on a prehospital HEART score in suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: design of the FamouS Triage 3 study

Background: It is not yet investigated whether referral decisions based on prehospital risk stratification of non-ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) by the complete History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and initial Troponin (HEART) score are feasible and safe. Hypothesis: Implementation of referral decisions based on the prehospital acquired HEART score in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS is feasible and not inferior to routine management in the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events within 45 days. Study design & methods: FamouS Triage 3 is a feasibility study with a before-after sequential design. The aim is to assess whether prehospital HEART-score management including point-of-care troponin measurement is feasible and noninferior to routine management. Primary end point is the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events within 45 days. Conclusion: If referral decisions based on prehospital acquired risk stratification are feasible and noninferior this can become the new prehospital management in suspected NSTE-ACS.

High-Risk Chief Complaints I: Chest Pain-The Big Three (an Update)

Nontraumatic chest pain is a frequent concern of emergency department patients, with causes that range from benign to immediately life threatening. Identifying those patients who require immediate/urgent intervention remains challenging and is a high-risk area for emergency medicine physicians where incorrect or delayed diagnosis may lead to significant morbidity and mortality. This article focuses on the 3 most prevalent diagnoses associated with adverse outcomes in patients presenting with nontraumatic chest pain, acute coronary syndrome, thoracic aortic dissection, and pulmonary embolism. Important aspects of clinical evaluation, diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition and other less common causes of lethal chest pain are also discussed.

Acute rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the (pre)hospital setting by HEART score assessment and a single point-of-care troponin: rationale and design of the ARTICA randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Because of the lack of prehospital protocols to rule out a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), patients with chest pain are often transferred to the emergency department (ED) for thorough evaluation. However, in low-risk patients, an ACS is rarely found, resulting in unnecessary healthcare consumption. Using the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin) score, low-risk patients are easily identified. When a point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement is included in the HEART score, an ACS can adequately be ruled out in low-risk patients in the prehospital setting. However, it remains unclear whether a prehospital rule-out strategy using the HEART score and a POC troponin measurement in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS is cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ARTICA trial is a randomised trial in which the primary objective is to investigate the cost-effectiveness after 30 days of an early rule-out strategy for low-risk patients suspected of a NSTE-ACS, using a modified HEART score including a POC troponin T measurement. Patients are included by ambulance paramedics and 1:1 randomised for (1) presentation at the ED (control group) or (2) POC troponin T measurement (intervention group) and transfer of the care to the general practitioner in case of a low troponin T value. In total, 866 patients will be included. Follow-up will be performed after 30 days, 6 months and 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been accepted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee region Arnhem-Nijmegen. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and in additional papers with subgroup analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register (NL7148).

In-Hospital Healthcare Utilization, Outcomes, and Costs in Pre-Hospital-Adjudicated Low-Risk Chest-Pain Patients

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that in patients presenting with acute chest pain, pre-hospital triage can accurately identify low-risk patients. It is, however, still unclear which diagnostics are performed in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk patients and what the contribution is of those diagnostic results in the healthcare process.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to quantify healthcare utilization, costs, and outcomes in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk chest-pain patients, and to extrapolate to total costs in the Netherlands.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study including 700 patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in which pre-hospital risk stratification using the HEART score was performed by paramedics. Low risk was defined as a pre-hospital HEART score ≤ 3. Data on (results of) hospital diagnostics, costs, and discharge diagnosis were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 172 (25%) patients were considered as low risk. Of these low-risk patients, the mean age was 54 years, 52% were male, and 84% of patients were discharged within 12 h. Repeated electrocardiography and routine laboratory measurements, including cardiac markers, were performed in all patients. Chest X-ray was performed in 61% and echocardiography in 11% of patients. After additional diagnostics, two patients (1.2%) were diagnosed as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and two patients (1.2%) as unstable angina. Other diagnoses were atrial fibrillation (n = 1) and acute pancreatitis/cholecystitis (n = 2); all other patients had non-specific/non-acute discharge diagnoses. Mean in-hospital costs per patient were €1580. The estimated yearly acute healthcare cost in low-risk chest-pain patients in the Netherlands is €30,438,700.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk chest-pain patients according to pre-hospital risk assessment, acute healthcare utilization and costs are high, with limited added value. Possibly, if a complete risk assessment can be performed by ambulance paramedics, acute hospitalization of the majority of low-risk patients is not necessary, which can lead to substantial cost reduction.

TRIAL ID

Dutch Trial Register [http://www.trialregister.nl]: trial number 4205.

Safely Identifying Emergency Department Patients With Acute Chest Pain for Early Discharge

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin) is an accelerated diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30-day death and myocardial infarction rate <1% in low-risk patients) and effective (reduces 30-day hospitalizations) in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

A prospective pre-post study was conducted at 3 US sites among 8474 adult emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and had no evidence of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction on ECG. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After accelerated diagnostic protocol integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data.

RESULTS

Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (55.6% versus 61.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87). During the index visit, more MIs were detected in the postimplementation cohort (6.6% versus 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33).

CONCLUSIONS

HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02056964.

Incorporation of the HEART Score Into a Low-risk Chest Pain Pathway to Safely Decrease Admissions

Chest pain can be a challenging complaint to manage in the emergency department. A missed diagnosis can result in significant morbidity or mortality, whereas avoidable testing and hospitalizations can lead to increased health care costs, contribute to hospital crowding, and increase risks to patients. The HEART score is a validated decision aid to identify patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome who can be safely discharged without admission or objective cardiac testing. In the largest and one of the longest studies to date (N = 31,060; 30 months), we included the HEART score into a larger, newly developed low-risk chest pain decision pathway, using a retrospective observational pre/post study design with the objective of safely lowering admissions. The modified HEART score calculation tool was incorporated in our electronic medical record. A significant increase in discharges of low-risk chest pain patients (relative increase of 21%; p < 0.0001) in the postimplementation period was observed with no significant difference in the rates of major adverse cardiac events between the pre and post periods. There was a decrease in the amount of return admissions for 30 days (4.65% fewer; p = 0.009) and 60 days (3.78% fewer; p = 0.020). No significant difference in length of stay was observed for patients who were ultimately discharged. A 64% decrease in monthly coronary computed tomography angiograms was observed in the post period (p < 0.0001). These findings support the growing consensus in the literature that the adoption of the HEART pathway or similar protocols in emergency departments, including at large and high-volume medical institutions, can substantially benefit patient care and reduce associated health care costs.

Value of early rest myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT in patients with chest pain and non-diagnostic ECG in emergency department

Evaluation of atypical presentation of angina chest pain in emergency department is difficult. Hospitalization of this patient may impose additional costs and waste the time, early discharge may lead to miss the patients. The aim of this study was to determine volubility of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) in management of patients admitted to emergency department with atypical manifestations of angina pain, un-diagnostic Electrocardiogram (ECG) and negative enzyme. Half of 100 patients admitted to emergency department with atypical chest pain and un-diagnostic ECG who were candidate for admission, underwent ECG gated resting SPECT. According to the results of SPECT, low risk patient discharged after negative stress SPECT. All discharged patients were followed up for major cardiac events (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and repeat admission for congestive heart failure) for 12 months. According to rest SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI), about 70% of patients in case group was low risk and 30% of them had moderate or high risk. Case group represented lower hospitalization rate and lower need for Coronary Artery Angiography (CAG) in comparison with control group. Mean cost in case group was significantly lower than control group (175.15$ vs. 391.33$, P < 0.001). In one year follow- up no cases of mortality or major cardiovascular events as cardiac infraction were found in discharged patients in case group. our study showed that rest SPECT fulfillment in admitted patients in emergency department was validated method for assessing patients' risk which avoids unnecessary hospitalizations and additional costs.

The HEART Pathway Randomized Controlled Trial One-year Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the impact of the HEART Pathway on health care utilization and safety outcomes at 1 year in patients with acute chest pain.

METHODS

Adult emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain (N = 282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, ED providers used the HEART score and troponin measures (0 and 3 hours) to risk stratify patients. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE-cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or coronary revascularization), objective testing (stress testing or coronary angiography), and cardiac hospitalizations and ED visits were assessed at 1 year. Randomization arm outcomes were compared using Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients were enrolled, with 141 randomized to each arm. MACE at 1 year occurred in 10.6% (30/282): 9.9% in the HEART Pathway arm (14/141; 10 MIs, four revascularizations without MI) versus 11.3% in usual care (16/141; one cardiac death, 13 MIs, two revascularizations without MI; p = 0.85). Among low-risk HEART Pathway patients, 0% (0/66) had MACE, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% confidence interval = 93%-100%). Objective testing through 1 year occurred in 63.1% (89/141) of HEART Pathway patients compared to 71.6% (101/141) in usual care (p = 0.16). Nonindex cardiac-related hospitalizations and ED visits occurred in 14.9% (21/141) and 21.3% (30/141) of patients in the HEART Pathway versus 10.6% (15/141) and 16.3% (23/141) in usual care (p = 0.37, p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The HEART Pathway had a 100% NPV for 1-year safety outcomes (MACE) without increasing downstream hospitalizations or ED visits. Reduction in 1-year objective testing was not significant.

An external validation of the HEART pathway among Emergency Department patients with chest pain

The impact of an outpatient disposition strategy for patients with HEART score 0-3 (HEART pathway) on HEART score prognostic accuracy is unclear. Our objective is to perform an external validation the HEART score in the setting of recent implementation of the HEART pathway. We conducted an external validation study of the HEART pathway among patients presenting to our ED with chest pain 6 weeks after institutional implementation of a HEART pathway outpatient disposition pathway. We reviewed the charts of 625 consecutive patients with chest pain. Data abstracted included all elements of the HEART score to include history, electrocardiogram (ECG) read, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We also reviewed each patient's record for evidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) to include mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization over 6 weeks following their initial ED visit. We double-abstracted 10% of the charts for quality assurance purposes. Of 625 charts, 449 patients met all criteria for study inclusion. Of these, 25 subjects (5.56%) experience 6-week MACE. No subject with a score of 3 or less has a MACE at 6 weeks (100% sensitivity, 38.7% specificity). The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.898 (95% confidence interval 0.847-0.950). Kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability range from 0.62 for the history component of the HEART score to 1.0 for troponin. A low HEART score (0-3) maintains excellent sensitivity for predicting 6-week MACE in the setting of an outpatient disposition pathway for these patients.

The HEART score in predicting major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department with possible acute coronary syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a common, sometimes difficult to diagnose spectrum of diseases occurring after abrupt reduction in blood flow through a coronary artery. Given the diagnostic challenge, it is sensible for emergency physicians to have an approach to prognosticate patients with possible ACS. Multiple prediction models have been developed to help identify patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes. The HEART score is the first model to be derived, validated, and undergo clinical impact studies in emergency department (ED) patients with possible ACS.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a protocol for a prognostic systematic review of the literature evaluating the HEART score as a predictor of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting to the ED with possible ACS.

METHODS/DESIGN

This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and is registered on PROSPERO. All methodological tools to be used are endorsed by the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group. Pre-defined eligibility criteria are provided. Multiple strategies will be used to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies will be selected and data extracted using standardised forms based on the CHARMS checklist. The QUIPS tool will be used to assess the risk of bias within individual studies. Outcome measures will include prevalence, risk ratio, and absolute risk reduction for MACE within 6 weeks of ED evaluation, comparing HEART scores 0-3 versus 4-10. HEART score prognostic performance will be evaluated with the concordance (C) statistic (model discrimination), observed to expected events ratio (model calibration), and a decision curve analysis. Reporting biases and methodological, clinical, and statistical heterogeneity will be scrutinised. Unless deemed inappropriate, a meta-analysis and pre-defined subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Overall judgements about evidence quality and strength of recommendations will be summarised using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

This review will identify, select, and appraise studies evaluating the prognostic performance of the HEART score, producing results of interest to emergency physicians. These results may encourage shared clinical decision-making in the ED by facilitating risk communication with patients and health care providers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017084400 .

Reliability of the CARE rule and the HEART score to rule out an acute coronary syndrome in non-traumatic chest pain patients

In patients consulting in the Emergency Department for chest pain, a HEART score ≤ 3 has been shown to rule out an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with a low risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) occurrence. A negative CARE rule (≤ 1) that stands for the first four elements of the HEART score may have similar rule-out reliability without troponin assay requirement. We aim to prospectively assess the performance of the CARE rule and of the HEART score to predict MACE in a chest pain population. Prospective two-center non-interventional study. Patients admitted to the ED for non-traumatic chest pain were included, and followed-up at 6 weeks. The main study endpoint was the 6-week rate of MACE (myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, coronary bypass, and sudden unexplained death). 641 patients were included, of whom 9.5% presented a MACE at 6 weeks. The CARE rule was negative for 31.2% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0, 95% confidence interval: (0.0-1.9)]. The HEART score was ≤ 3 for 63.0% of patients, and none presented a MACE during follow-up [0% (0.0-0.9)]. With an incidence below 2% in the negative group, the CARE rule seemed able to safely rule out a MACE without any biological test for one-third of patients with chest pain and the HEART score for another third with a single troponin assay.

Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Central Vietnam: International Exchange, Needs Assessment, and Spatial Care Paths

OBJECTIVES

Objectives were to (a) advance point-of-care (POC) education, international exchange, and culture; (b) report needs assessment survey results from Thua Thien Hue Province, Central Vietnam; (c) determine diagnostic capabilities in regional health care districts of the small-world network of Hue University Medical Center; and (d) recommend Spatial Care Paths that accelerate the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients.

METHODS

We organized progressively focused, intensive, and interactive lectures, workshops, and investigative teamwork over a 2-year period. We surveyed hospital staff in person to determine the status of diagnostic testing at 15 hospitals in 7 districts. Questions focused on cardiac rapid response, prediabetes/diabetes, infectious diseases, and other serious challenges, including epidemic preparedness.

RESULTS

Educational exchange revealed a nationwide shortage of POC coordinators. Throughout the province, ambulances transfer patients primarily between hospitals, rarely picking up from homes. No helicopter rescue was available. Ambulance travel times from distant sites to referral hospitals were excessive, longer in costal and mountainous areas. Most hospitals (92.3%) used electrocardiogram and creatine phosphokinase-MB isoenzyme to diagnose AMI. Cardiac troponin I/T testing was performed only at large referral hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Central Vietnam must improve rapid diagnosis and treatment of AMI patients. Early upstream POC cardiac troponin testing on Spatial Care Paths will expedite transfers directly to hospitals capable of intervening, improving outcomes following coronary occlusion. Point-of-care coordinator certification and financial support will enhance standards of care cost-effectively. Training young physicians pivots on high-value evidence-based learning when POC cardiac troponin T/cardiac troponin I biomarkers are in place for rapid decision making, especially in emergency rooms.

The HAS-Choice study: Utilizing the HEART score, an ADP, and shared decision-making to decrease admissions in chest pain patients

OBJECTIVE

The HAS-Choice pathway utilizes the HEART Score, an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP), and shared decision-making using a visual aid in the evaluation of chest pain patients. We seek to determine if our intervention can improve resource utilization in a community emergency department (ED) setting while maintaining safe patient care.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective cohort study with historical that included ED patients ≥21years old presenting with a primary complaint of chest pain in two time periods. The primary outcome was patient disposition. Secondary outcomes focused on 30-day ED bounce back and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

In the pre-implementation period, the unadjusted disposition to inpatient, observation and discharge was 6.5%, 49.1% and 44.4%, respectively, whereas in the post period, the disposition was 4.8%, 41.5% and 53.7%, respectively (chi-square p<0.001). The adjusted odds of a patient being discharged was 40% higher (OR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.51; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The adjusted odds of patient admission was 30% lower (OR=0.70; 95% CI, 0.60, 0.82; p<0.001) in the post-implementation period. The odds of 30-day ED bounce back did not statistically differ between the two periods. MACE rates were <1% in both periods, with a significant decrease in mortality in the post-implementation period.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that implementation of a shared decision-making tool that integrates an ADP and the HEART score can safely decrease hospital admissions without an increase in MACE.

Noninvasive Cardiac Testing vs Clinical Evaluation Alone in Acute Chest Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the ROMICAT-II Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The incremental benefit of noninvasive testing in addition to clinical evaluation (history, physical examination, an electrocardiogram [ECG], and biomarker assessment) vs clinical evaluation alone for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in outcomes with clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing (coronary computed tomographic angiography [CCTA] or stress testing) vs clinical evaluation alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the randomized multicenter Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT-II) trial. Data for 1000 patients who presented with chest pain to the EDs at 9 hospitals in the United States were evaluated.

INTERVENTIONS

Clinical evaluation plus noninvasive testing (CCTA or stress test) vs clinical evaluation alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, direct ED discharge, downstream testing, rates of invasive coronary angiography, revascularization, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), repeated ED visit or hospitalization for recurrent chest pain at 28 days, and cost. Safety end points were missed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cumulative radiation exposure during the index visit and follow-up period.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 patients randomized, 118 patients (12%) (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [7.8]; 49 [42%] were female) did not undergo noninvasive testing, whereas 882 (88%) (mean [SD] age, 54.4 [8.14] years; 419 [48%] were female) received CCTA or stress testing. There was no difference in baseline characteristics or clinical presentation between groups. Patients who underwent clinical evaluation alone experienced a shorter LOS (20.3 vs 27.9 hours; P < .001), lower rates of diagnostic testing (P < .001) and angiography (2% vs 11%; P < .001), lower median costs ($2261.50 vs $2584.30; P = .009), and less cumulative radiation exposure (0 vs 9.9 mSv; P < .001) during the 28-day study period. Lack of testing was associated with a lower rate of diagnosis of ACS (0% vs 9%; P < .001) and less coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index visit (0% vs 10%; P < .001, and 0% vs 4%; P = .02, respectively). There was no difference in rates of PCI (2% vs 5%; P = .15), coronary artery bypass surgery (0% vs 1%; P = .61), return ED visits (5.8% vs 2.8%; P = .08), or MACE (2% vs 1%; P = .24) in the 28-day follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain, negative biomarkers, and a nonischemic ECG result, noninvasive testing with CCTA or stress testing leads to longer LOS, more downstream testing, more radiation exposure, and greater cost without an improvement in clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01084239.

Prehospital Modified HEART Score Predictive of 30-Day Adverse Cardiac Events

Introduction

The History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score is a decision aid designed to risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain. It has been validated for ED use, but it has yet to be evaluated in a prehospital setting.

Hypothesis

A prehospital modified HEART score can predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among undifferentiated chest pain patients transported to the ED.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain transported by two county-based Emergency Medical Service (EMS) agencies to a tertiary care center was conducted. Adults without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included. Inter-facility transfers and those without a prehospital 12-lead ECG or an ED troponin measurement were excluded. Modified HEART scores were calculated by study investigators using a standardized data collection tool for each patient. All MACE (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or coronary revascularization) were determined by record review at 30 days. The sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) for MACE at 30 days were calculated.

Results

Over the study period, 794 patients met inclusion criteria. A MACE at 30 days was present in 10.7% (85/794) of patients with 12 deaths (1.5%), 66 MIs (8.3%), and 12 coronary revascularizations without MI (1.5%). The modified HEART score identified 33.2% (264/794) of patients as low risk. Among low-risk patients, 1.9% (5/264) had MACE (two MIs and three revascularizations without MI). The sensitivity and NPV for 30-day MACE was 94.1% (95% CI, 86.8-98.1) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6-99.4), respectively.

Conclusions

Prehospital modified HEART scores have a high NPV for MACE at 30 days. A study in which prehospital providers prospectively apply this decision aid is warranted.

StopyraJP, HarperWS, HigginsTJ, ProkesovaJV, WinslowJE, NelsonRD, AlsonRL, DavisCA, RussellGB, MillerCD, MahlerSA. Prehospital modified HEART score predictive of 30-day adverse cardiac events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):58–62.