Evaluation of the patient with acute chest pain

In-Hospital Cost Comparison of Triple-Rule-Out Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Standard of Care in Patients With Acute Chest Pain

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utilization of invasive and noninvasive tests and compare cost in patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department (ED) who underwent either triple-rule-out computed tomography angiography (TRO-CTA) or standard of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of 2156 ED patients who presented with acute chest pain with a negative initial troponin and electrocardiogram for myocardial injury. Patient cohorts matched by patient characteristics who had undergone TRO-CTA as a primary imaging test (n=1139) or standard of care without initial CTA imaging (n=1017) were included in the study. ED visits, utilization of tests, and costs during the initial episode of hospital care were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, pulmonary embolism, or aortic dissection were observed. Median ED waiting time (4.5 vs. 7.0 h, P<0.001), median total length of hospital stay (5.0 vs. 32.0 h, P<0.001), hospital admission rate (12.6% vs. 54.2%, P<0.001), and ED return rate to our hospital within 30 days (3.5% vs. 14.6%, P<0.001) were significantly lower in the TRO-CTA group. Moreover, reduced rates of additional testing and invasive coronary angiography (4.9% vs. 22.7%, P<0.001), and ultimately lower total cost per patient (11,783$ vs. 19,073$, P<0.001) were observed in the TRO-CTA group.

CONCLUSIONS

TRO-CTA as an initial imaging test in ED patients presenting with acute chest pain was associated with shorter ED and hospital length of stay, fewer return visits within 30 days, and ultimately lower ED and hospitalization costs.

Vital Signs Data and Probability of Hospitalization, Transfer to Another Facility, or Emergency Department Death Among Adults Presenting for Medical Illnesses to the Emergency Department at a Large Urban Hospital in the United States

BACKGROUND

Vital signs are routinely measured from patients presenting to the emergency department (ED), but how they predict clinical outcomes like hospitalization is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how pulse, respiratory rate, temperature, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at ED presentation predicted probability of hospitalization, transfer to another center, or death in the ED (as a composite outcome) vs. other ED dispositions (discharged, eloped, and sent to observation or labor and delivery), and to assess the performance of different modeling strategies, specifically, models including flexible forms of vital signs (as restricted cubic splines) vs. linear forms (untransformed numeric variables) vs. binary transformations (vital signs values categorized simply as normal or abnormal).

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 12,660 adults presenting for medical illnesses to the ED at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, throughout 2014. We used flexible forms of vital signs data at presentation (pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, and MAP) to predict ED disposition (admitted, transferred, or died, vs. other ED dispositions) and to guide binary transformation of vital signs. We compared performance of models including vital signs as flexible terms, binary transformations, or linear terms.

RESULTS

A model including flexible forms of vital signs and age to predict the outcome had good calibration and moderate discrimination (C-statistic = 71.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 70.0-72.4). Binary transformation of vital signs had minimal impact on performance (C-statistic = 71.3, 95% CI 70.2-72.5). A model with linear forms was less calibrated and had slightly reduced discrimination (C-statistic = 70.3, 95% CI 69.1-71.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that flexible modeling of vital signs may better reflect their association with clinical outcomes. Future studies to evaluate how vital signs could assist clinical decision-making in acute care settings are suggested.

Cardiac CT in the Emergency Department: Contrasting Evidence from Registries and Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To compare outcomes between registries and randomized controlled trials of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA)-based versus standard of care approaches to the initial evaluation of patients with acute chest pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Randomized trials have demonstrated CCTA to be a safe and efficient tool for triage of low- to intermediate-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Recent studies demonstrate heterogeneous result using different standard of care approaches for evaluation of hard endpoints in comparison with standard evaluation. Also, there has been continued concern for increase in subsequent testing after coronary CTA. Although CCTA improves detection of coronary artery disease, it is uncertain if it will bring improvement of long-term health outcomes at this point of time. Careful analysis of the previous results and further investigation will be required to validate evaluation of hard endpoints.

Cardiac CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain

Chest pain is the second most common emergency department (ED) presentation in the United States. Cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) now plays an important role in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in the ED setting. In this article, we review the available techniques focused on the use of CCTA to evaluate patients fosr coronary atherosclerosis for timely triage of acute chest pain.

[Radiologists in the emergency department: when and how to use multislice CT]

Chest pain is a challenging clinical problem in the emergency department. Despite advances in clinical diagnosis, many patients with atypical chest pain are needlessly hospitalized and others are mistakenly discharged. Faced with the specific clinical situation in which a patient has chest pain, an initially normal or inconclusive electrocardiogram, and normal cardiac biomarkers, multislice CT has proven useful for ruling out the conditions that involve the greatest morbidity and mortality and for establishing the cause of pain. This article reviews the current usefulness of multislice CT in the diagnostic workup of patients presenting at the emergency department with chest pain. We review the technique, define the most appropriate population, describe the acquisition protocols, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each study protocol.