Critical pathways for patients with acute chest pain at low risk

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.

The disutility of stress testing in low-risk HEART Pathway patients

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway identifies low-risk chest pain patients for discharge from the Emergency Department without stress testing. However, HEART Pathway recommendations are not always followed. The objective of this study is to determine the frequency and diagnostic yield of stress testing among low-risk patients.

METHODS

An academic hospital's chest pain registry was analyzed for low-risk HEART Pathway patients (HEAR score ≤ 3 with non-elevated troponins) from 1/2017 to 7/2018. Stress tests were reviewed for inducible ischemia. Diagnostic yield was defined as the rate of obstructive CAD among patients with positive stress testing. T-test or Fisher's exact test was used to test the univariate association of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and HEAR score with stress testing. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and HEAR score with stress testing.

RESULTS

There were 4743 HEART Pathway assessments, with 43.7% (2074/4743) being low-risk. Stress testing was performed on 4.1% (84/2074). Of the 84 low-risk patients who underwent testing, 8.3% (7/84) had non-diagnostic studies and 2.6% (2/84) had positive studies. Among the 2 patients with positive studies, angiography revealed that 1 had widely patent coronary arteries and the other had multivessel obstructive coronary artery disease, making the diagnostic yield of stress testing 1.2% (1/84). Each one-point increase in HEAR score (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.45-3.24) and being male (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02-2.49) were associated with testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Stress testing among low-risk HEART Pathway patients was uncommon, low yield, and more likely in males and those with a higher HEAR score.

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.

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.

A Multidisciplinary Self-Directed Learning Module Improves Knowledge of a Quality Improvement Instrument: The HEART Pathway

We created and tested an educational intervention to support implementation of an institution wide QI project (the HEART Pathway) designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain. Although online learning modules have been shown effective in imparting knowledge regarding QI projects, it is unknown whether these modules are effective across specialties and healthcare professions. Participants, including nurses, advanced practice clinicians, house staff and attending physicians (N = 486), were enrolled into an online, self-directed learning course exploring the key concepts of the HEART Pathway. The module was completed by 97% of enrollees (469/486) and 90% passed on the first attempt (422/469). Out of 469 learners, 323 completed the pretest, learning module and posttest in the correct order. Mean test scores across learners improved significantly from 74% to 89% from the pretest to the posttest. Following the intervention, the HEART Pathway was used for 88% of patients presenting to our institution with acute chest pain. Our data demonstrate that this online, self-directed learning module can improve knowledge of the HEART Pathway across specialties-paving the way for more efficient and informed care for acute chest pain patients.

Implementation of the HEART Pathway: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

OBJECTIVE

The HEART Pathway is an evidence-based decision tool for identifying emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain who are candidates for early discharge, to reduce unhelpful and potentially harmful hospitalizations. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we sought to identify important barriers and facilitators to implementation of the HEART Pathway.

STUDY SETTING

Data were collected at 4 academic medical centers.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 key stakeholders (e.g., health system leaders, ED physicians). We conducted interviews before implementation of the HEART Pathway tool to identify potential barriers and facilitators to successful adoption at other regional academic medical centers. We also conducted postimplementation interviews at 1 medical center, to understand factors that contributed to successful adoption.

DATA COLLECTION

Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework-driven deductive approach for coding and analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Potential barriers to implementation include time and resource burden, challenges specific to the electronic health record, sustained communication with and engagement of stakeholders, and patient concerns. Facilitators to implementation include strength of evidence for reduced length of stay and unnecessary testing and iatrogenic complications, ease of use, and supportive provider climate for evidence-based decision tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful dissemination of the HEART Pathway will require addressing institution-specific barriers, which includes engaging clinical and financial stakeholders. New SMART-FHIR technologies, compatible with many electronic health record systems, can overcome barriers to health systems with limited information technology resources.

Implementation and impact analysis of a transitional care pathway for patients presenting to the emergency department with cardiac-related complaints

Background

Cardiac-related complaints are leading drivers of Emergency Department (ED) utilization. Although a large proportion of cardiac patients can be discharged with appropriate outpatient follow-up, inadequate care coordination often leads to high revisit rates or unnecessary admissions. We evaluate the impact of implementing a structured transitional care pathway enrolling low-risk cardiac patients on ED discharges, 30-day revisits and admissions, and institutional revenues.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled eligible patients presenting to a single-center Emergency Department over a 12-month period. Standardized risk measures were used to identify patients suitable for early discharge with cardiology follow-up within 5 days. The primary endpoints were rates of discharge from the ED and 30-day ED revisit and admission rates, with a secondary endpoint including 30-day returns for myocardial infarction. A cost analysis of the program’s impact on institutional revenues was performed.

Results

Among patients presenting with cardiac-related complaints, rates of discharge from the ED increased from 44.4 to 56.6% (p < 0.0001). Enrollment in the transitional care pathway was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac-related ED revisits (RR 0.22, p < 0.0001), all-cause ED revisits (RR 0.30, p < 0.0001), and admission at second ED visit (RR 0.56, p = 0.0047); among enrolled patients, the 30-day rate of return with a myocardial infarction was 0.35%. No significant reductions were seen in 30-day cardiac-related and all-cause revisits in the 12-months following transitional care pathway implementation; however, there was a significant reduction in admissions at second ED visit from 45.6 to 37.7% (p = 0.0338). An early gender disparity in care delivery was identified in the first 120 days following program implementation that was subsequently eliminated through targeted intervention. There was an estimated decline in institutional revenue of $300 per enrolled patient, driven predominantly by a reduction in admissions.

Conclusions

A structured transitional care pathway identifying low-risk cardiac patients who may be safely discharged from the ED can be effective in shifting care delivery from hospital-based to lower cost ambulatory settings without adversely impacting 30-day ED revisit rates or patient outcomes.

A retrospective external validation study of the HEART score among patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain

Emergency physicians must be able to effectively prognosticate outcomes for patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with chest pain. The HEART score offers a prognostication tool, but external validation studies are limited. We conducted an external retrospective validation study of the HEART score among ED patients presenting to our ED with chest pain from 1 January 2014 to 9 June 2014. We utilized chart review methodology to abstract data from each patient's electronic medical record. We collected data relevant to each of the five elements of the HEART score: history, electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the HEART score (0-10) for predicting the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 6 weeks following the ED visit (coronary revascularization, myocardial infarction, or mortality). We randomly selected 10% of patient charts from which a second investigator abstracted all data to assess inter-rater reliability for all study variables. Of 625 charts reviewed, we abstracted data on 417 (66.7%) consecutive patients meeting study inclusion criteria. Thirty-one (7.4%) of these patients experienced 6-week MACE. We observed no instances of MACE within 6 weeks among subjects with a HEART score of 3 or less. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.885 (95% confidence interval 0.838-0.931). Patients with a HEART score ≤3 are at low risk for 6-week MACE. Hence, these patients may be candidates for outpatient follow-up instead of inpatient admission for cardiac risk stratification.

Effects of Clinical Pathways: Do They Work?

Objective:

Evaluation of the effect of implementing clinical pathways is a relatively new field in health care research. Little is known about the way in which practice is influenced by the implementation of clinical pathways, and to what degree. This review takes significant steps in answering these questions by describing the parameters that are used in literature as indicators to evaluate clinical pathways.

Methods:

A Medline-based review of literature published between 2000 and 2002 was carried out using the keywords ‘clinical pathway’, ‘critical pathway’, ‘care map’, ‘care pathway’ and ‘integrated care pathway’. Articles were selected if they contained any form of evaluation, outcome or indicator concerning the use of clinical pathways. This included all types of research design and sample size. A total of 200 articles were selected. Relevant data were summarized using the following characteristics: country of origin, clinical field of expertise, research design, sample size, clinical outcome indicators, service indicators, team indicators, process indicators and financial indicators. For each domain a positive, negative or ‘no effect’ conclusion was recorded. Excel® and Statistica® were used to obtain percentages and graphics.

Results:

A total of 34% of the articles on clinical pathways contained some form of evaluation concerning the effect of the implementation. Out of these articles, clinical outcome was emphasized in 65.5%, financial effects in 53%) and process effects were investigated by 50% of the studies. Team and service effects were discussed less often (24% and 18.5%), respectively). For clinical outcome, team, process and financial effects a variety of indicators were recorded. Service effects were almost always measured as ‘patient satisfaction’. The majority of the literature concluded that positive effects result from the implementation of clinical pathways.

Conclusion:

On a macro level clinical pathways result globally in positive effects. Negative results, however, were also present in the literature. In particular for process, team and service evaluation concerning the use of clinical pathways there is still a great need for research.

Best Clinical Practice: Current Controversies in Evaluation of Low-Risk Chest Pain-Part 1

BACKGROUND

Chest pain is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED), though the majority of patients are not diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Many patients are admitted to the hospital due to fear of ACS.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to investigate controversies in low-risk chest pain evaluation, including risk of missed ACS, stress test, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA).

DISCUSSION

Chest pain accounts for 10 million ED visits in the United States annually. Many patients are at low risk for a major cardiac adverse event (MACE). With negative troponin and nonischemic electrocardiogram (ECG), the risk of MACE and myocardial infarction (MI) is < 1%. The American Heart Association recommends further evaluation in low- to intermediate-risk patients within 72 h. These modalities add little to further risk stratification. These evaluations do not appropriately risk stratify patients who are already at low risk, nor do they diagnose acute MI. CCTA is an anatomic evaluation of the coronary vasculature with literature support to decrease ED length of stay, though it is associated with downstream testing. Literature is controversial concerning further risk stratification in already low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

With nonischemic ECG and negative cardiac biomarker, the risk of ACS approaches < 1%. Use of stress test and CCTA for risk stratification of low-risk chest pain patients is controversial. These tests may allow prognostication but do not predict ACS risk beyond ECG and troponin. CCTA may be useful for intermediate-risk patients, though further studies are required.

Documentation of HEART score discordance between emergency physician and cardiologist evaluations of ED patients with chest pain

INTRODUCTION

A triage cardiology program, in which cardiologists provide consultation to the Emergency Department (ED), may safely reduce admissions. For patients with chest pain, the HEART Pathway may obviate the need for cardiology involvement, unless there is a difference between ED and cardiology assessments. Therefore, in a cohort concurrently evaluated by both specialties, we analyzed discordance between ED and cardiology HEART scores.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study of adults presenting to the ED with chest pain who had a documented bedside evaluation by a triage cardiologist. Separate ED and cardiology HEART scores were computed based on documentation by the respective physicians. Discrepancies in HEART score between ED physicians and cardiologists were quantified using Cohen κ coefficient.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent concurrent ED physician and cardiologist evaluation. Twenty-three patients (70%) had discordant HEART scores (κ = 0.13; 95% confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.32). Discrepancies in the description of patients' chest pain were the most common source of discordance and were present in more than 50% of cases. HEART scores calculated by ED physicians tended to overestimate the scores calculated by cardiologists. When categorized into low-risk or high-risk by the HEART Pathway, more than 25% of patients were classified as high risk by the ED physician, but low risk by the cardiologist.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial discordance in HEART scores between ED physicians and cardiologists. A triage cardiology system may help refine risk stratification of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, even when the HEART Pathway tool is used.

Best Clinical Practice: Current Controversies in the Evaluation of Low-Risk Chest Pain with Risk Stratification Aids. Part 2

BACKGROUND

Chest pain accounts for 10% of emergency department (ED) visits annually, and many of these patients are admitted because of potentially life-threatening conditions. A substantial percentage of patients with chest pain are at low risk for a major cardiac adverse event (MACE).

OBJECTIVE

We investigated controversies in the evaluation of patients with low-risk chest pain, including clinical scores, decision pathways, and shared decision-making.

DISCUSSION

ED patients with chest pain who have negative biomarker results and nonischemic electrocardiograms are at low risk for MACE. With the large number of chest pain patients evaluated in the ED, several risk scores and pathways are in use based on history, electrocardiographic results, and biomarker results. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores are older rules with validation; however, they do not have adequate sensitivity or are not easy to use in the ED. The Vancouver chest pain and North American chest pain rules may be used for patients with undifferentiated chest pain in the ED. The Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes rule uses eight factors, several of which are not available in the United States. The history, electrocardiography, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score and pathway are easy to use, have high sensitivity and negative predictive values, and have better discriminatory capability for categorization. The use of pathways with shared decision-making involves the patient in management, shortens the duration of stay, and decreases risk to both the patient and the provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification of ED patients with chest pain has evolved, and there are many tools available. The HEART pathway, designed for ED use, has several attributes that provide safe and efficient care for patients with chest pain.

HEART Pathway Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol Implementation: Prospective Pre-Post Interrupted Time Series Design and Methods

Background

Most patients presenting to US Emergency Departments (ED) with chest pain are hospitalized for comprehensive testing. These evaluations cost the US health system >$10 billion annually, but have a diagnostic yield for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) of <10%. The history/ECG/age/risk factors/troponin (HEART) Pathway is an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP), designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain by identifying patients for early ED discharge. Prior efficacy studies demonstrate that the HEART Pathway safely reduces cardiac testing, while maintaining an acceptably low adverse event rate.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of HEART Pathway ADP implementation within a health system.

Methods

This controlled before-after study will accrue adult patients with acute chest pain, but without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on electrocardiogram for two years and is expected to include approximately 10,000 patients. Outcomes measures include hospitalization rate, objective cardiac testing rates (stress testing and angiography), length of stay, and rates of recurrent cardiac care for participants.

Results

In pilot data, the HEART Pathway decreased hospitalizations by 21%, decreased hospital length (median of 12 hour reduction), without increasing adverse events or recurrent care. At the writing of this paper, data has been collected on >5000 patient encounters. The HEART Pathway has been fully integrated into health system electronic medical records, providing real-time decision support to our providers.

Conclusions

We hypothesize that the HEART Pathway will safely reduce healthcare utilization. This study could provide a model for delivering high-value care to the 8-10 million US ED patients with acute chest pain each year.

ClinicalTrial

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02056964; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02056964 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ccajsgyu)

Adherence to an Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain: Secondary Analysis of the HEART Pathway Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Accelerated diagnostic protocols (ADPs), such as the HEART Pathway, are gaining popularity in emergency departments (EDs) as tools used to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, provider nonadherence may threaten the safety and effectiveness of ADPs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and impact of ADP nonadherence.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway RCT was conducted. This trial enrolled 282 adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on electrocardiogram. Patients randomized to the HEART Pathway (N = 141) were included in this analysis. Outcomes included index visit disposition, nonadherence, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. MACE was defined as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Nonadherence was defined as: 1) undertesting-discharging a high-risk patient from the ED without objective testing (stress testing or coronary angiography) or 2) overtesting-admitting or obtaining objective testing on a low-risk patient.

RESULTS

Nonadherence to the HEART Pathway occurred in 28 of 141 patients (20%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 27%). Overtesting occurred in 19 of 141 patients (13.5%, 95% CI = 8% to 19%) and undertesting in nine of 141 patients (6%, 95% CI = 3% to 12%). None of these 28 patients suffered MACE. The net effect of nonadherence was 10 additional admissions among patients identified as low-risk and appropriate for early discharge (absolute decrease in discharge rate of 7%, 95% CI = 3% to 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time use of the HEART Pathway resulted in a nonadherence rate of 20%, mostly due to overtesting. None of these patients had MACE within 30 days. Nonadherence decreased the discharge rate, attenuating the HEART Pathway's impact on health care use.

Performance of the 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol within the American College of Radiology Imaging Network PA 4005 cohort

OBJECTIVES

The 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADAPT) is a decision rule designed to identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge. Previous studies in the Asia-Pacific region demonstrated high sensitivity (97.9% to 99.7%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of ADAPT for risk stratification in a cohort of U.S. ED patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) PA 4005 trial was conducted. This trial enrolled 1,369 patients at least 30 years old with symptoms suggestive of ACS. All data elements were collected prospectively at the time of enrollment. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by ADAPT. Early discharge rate and sensitivity for MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization at 30 days, were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1,140 patients with complete biomarker data, MACE occurred in 31 patients (2.7%). Among 551 of the 1,140 (48.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.4% to 51.3%), ADAPT identified for early discharge; five of the 551 (0.9%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 2.1%) had MACE at 30 days. ADAPT was 83.9% (95% CI = 66.3% to 94.5%) sensitive, identifying 26 of 31 patients with MACE. Of the five patients identified for early discharge by ADAPT with MACE, there were no deaths, one patient with MI, and five with revascularizations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first North American application of the ADAPT strategy, sensitivity for MACE within 30 days was 83.9%. One missed adverse event was a MI, with the remainder representing coronary revascularizations. The effect of missing revascularization events needs further investigation.

The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway is a decision aid designed to identify emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. No randomized trials have compared the HEART Pathway with usual care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Adult emergency department patients with symptoms related to acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on ECG (n=282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, emergency department providers used the HEART score, a validated decision aid, and troponin measures at 0 and 3 hours to identify patients for early discharge. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary outcome, objective cardiac testing (stress testing or angiography), and secondary outcomes, index length of stay, early discharge, and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), were assessed at 30 days by phone interview and record review. Participants had a mean age of 53 years, 16% had previous myocardial infarction, and 6% (95% confidence interval, 3.6%-9.5%) had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of randomization. Compared with usual care, use of the HEART Pathway decreased objective cardiac testing at 30 days by 12.1% (68.8% versus 56.7%; P=0.048) and length of stay by 12 hours (9.9 versus 21.9 hours; P=0.013) and increased early discharges by 21.3% (39.7% versus 18.4%; P<0.001). No patients identified for early discharge had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The HEART Pathway reduces objective cardiac testing during 30 days, shortens length of stay, and increases early discharges. These important efficiency gains occurred without any patients identified for early discharge suffering MACE at 30 days.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01665521.

Implementation of a chest pain management service improves patient care and reduces length of stay

OBJECTIVE

Chest pain is one of the most common complaints in patients presenting to an emergency department. Delays in management due to a lack of readily available objective tests to risk stratify patients with possible acute coronary syndromes can lead to an unnecessarily lengthy admission placing pressure on hospital beds or inappropriate discharge. The need for a co-ordinated system of clinical management based on enhanced communication between departments, timely and appropriate triage, clinical investigation, diagnosis, and treatment was identified.

METHODS

An evidence-based Chest Pain Management Service and clinical pathway were developed and implemented, including the introduction of after-hours exercise stress testing.

RESULTS

Between November 2005 and March 2013, 5662 patients were managed according to a Chest Pain Management pathway resulting in a reduction of 5181 admission nights by more timely identification of patients at low risk who could then be discharged. In addition, 1360 days were avoided in high-risk patients who received earlier diagnosis and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of a Chest Pain Management pathway and the extended exercise stress testing service resulted in earlier discharge for low-risk patients; and timely treatment for patients with positive and equivocal exercise stress test results. This service demonstrated a significant saving in overnight admissions.

Cost burden of non-specific chest pain admissions

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiac aetiologies are common among patients presenting with chest pain.

AIM

To determine the cost of non-specific chest pain admissions to a tertiary referral, teaching hospital.

METHODS

Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk (TIMI) risk score, lengths of stay (LOS), investigations and diagnoses were recorded for patients admitted with chest pain. Non-specific chest pain was defined as chest pain where cardiac, pulmonary and gastroesophageal aetiologies were excluded. Costs of admissions were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 80 patients, 34 (4%) and 22 (28%) were diagnosed with non-specific chest pain and acute coronary syndrome, respectively. Non-specific chest pain admissions had a mean age of 54 (11; 35-74) years, LOS of 3.8 (2.6; 1-11) days and TIMI risk score of 1.4 (1.5; 0-5). Acute coronary syndrome admissions had a mean age of 67 (14; 43-94) years, LOS of 7.7 (4.3; 2-16) days and TIMI risk score of 3.1 (1.2; 0-5). The mean cost per non-specific chest pain admission was €3,729 (2,378; 1,034-10,468), or 48% of the mean cost per acute coronary syndrome admission of €7,667 (4,279; 1,963-16,071). Bed day costs account for >90% of overall costs. Only 7% of patients were weekend discharges. The mean interval to exercise stress test was 2.7(1.5; 1-7) days.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean costs of admission and LOS for patients with non-specific chest pain are significant. Extrapolating findings, annual national cost is estimated at approximately €71 million for this cohort, with 73,000 bed days consumed nationally. Delays from admission to tests and low percentage of weekend discharges prolong LOS.

Can the HEART score safely reduce stress testing and cardiac imaging in patients at low risk for major adverse cardiac events?

BACKGROUND

Patients with low-risk chest pain have high utilization of stress testing and cardiac imaging, but low rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of this study was to determine whether the HEART score could safely reduce objective cardiac testing in patients with low-risk chest pain.

METHODS

A cohort of chest pain patients was identified from an emergency department-based observation unit registry. HEART scores were determined using registry data elements and blinded chart review. HEART scores were dichotomized into low (0-3) or high risk (>3). The outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); a composite end point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization during the index visit or within 30 days. Sensitivity, specificity, and potential reduction of cardiac testing were calculated.

RESULTS

In a span of 28 months, the registry included 1070 low-risk chest pain patients. MACE occurred in 0.6% (5/904) of patients with low-risk HEART scores compared with 4.2% (7/166) with a high-risk HEART scores (odds ratio = 7.92; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.48-25.25). A HEART score of >3 was 58% sensitive (95% CI: 32-81%) and 85% specific (95% CI: 83-87%) for MACE. The HEART score missed 5 cases of ACS among 1070 patients (0.5%) and could have reduced cardiac testing by 84.5% (904/1070). Combination of serial troponin >0.065 ng/mL or HEART score >3 resulted in sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 72-100%), specificity of 83% (95% CI: 81-85%), and potential reduction in cardiac testing of 82% (879/1070).

CONCLUSIONS

If used to guide stress testing and cardiac imaging, the HEART score could substantially reduce cardiac testing in a population with low pretest probability of ACS.

The evolution of chest pain pathways

Patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain require prompt identification and referral, as early treatment of patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is crucial to decrease morbidity and mortality (Steurer et al, Emerg Med J. 2010;27:896-902). Although rule-in ACS is critical and time dependant, other difficulties arise during the rule-out ACS process (Steurer et al, Emerg Med J. 2010;27:896-902). Inappropriate discharge of patients with misdiagnosed acute myocardial infarction is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Concerns relating to inappropriate discharge result in readmission with resultant lengthy hospital stays, high costs, and contribute to overcrowding and bed block (Amsterdam et al, J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:251-256; Cardiol Clin. 2005;23:503-516; Furtado et al, Emerg Med. In press; Karlson, Am J Cardiol. 1991;68:171-175; Ng et al, Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:611-617; Ramakrishna et al, Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:322-329; Stowers, Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2003;2:88-94). The challenge of chest pain diagnosis has led to a number of associated problems within the health care system. The growing need for improvements in consistency of patient care, resource efficiency, and quality of patient healthcare has led to the development of chest pain pathways (Erhardt et al, Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1153-1176). The development and implementation of chest pain pathways is not without difficulties. These may arise from differences in the management approaches of health practitioners, poor adherence to guidelines, and concerns for costs. New procedures such as new cardiac injury markers, stress testing, and specialized chest pain units have led to a reduction in admission rates and length of stay, reduced costs, and a reduction of inappropriate discharge of patients with ischemic heart disease.

Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care

The decision to admit a patient to the hospital after an emergency department (ED) visit is expensive, frequently not evidence-based, and variable. Outpatient critical pathways are a promising approach to reduce hospital admission after emergency care. Critical pathways exist to risk stratify patients for potentially serious diagnoses (e.g., acute myocardial infarction [AMI]) or evaluate response to therapy (e.g., community-acquired pneumonia) within a short time period (i.e., less than 36 hours), to determine if further hospital-based acute care is needed. Yet, such pathways are variably used while many patients are admitted for conditions for which they could be treated as outpatients. In this article, the authors propose a model of post-ED critical pathways, describe their role in emergency care, list common diagnoses that are amenable to critical pathways in the outpatient setting, and propose a research agenda to address barriers and solutions to increase the use of outpatient critical pathways. If emergency providers are to routinely conduct rapid evaluations in outpatient or observation settings, they must have several conditions at their disposal: 1) evidence-based tools to accurately risk stratify patients for protocolized care, 2) systems of care that reliably facilitate workup in the outpatient setting, and 3) a medical environment conducive to noninpatient pathways, with aligned risks and incentives among patients, providers, and payers. Increased use of critical pathways after emergency care is a potential way to improve the value of emergency care.

Design of a comprehensive chest pain initiative in an academic urban hospital

We describe the development and institution of an initiative based on a clinical diagnostic algorithm and treatment pathways, facilitated by cardiac nurse practitioners, for the treatment of the diverse group of patients with chest pain who seek treatment at our urban-based institution. We believe that our chest pain initiative incorporates previous strategies of rapid emergency department management with inpatient-based care while providing a framework for outpatient follow-up and secondary prevention. These strategies allow our hospital to meet its goals of providing chest pain patients with standardized, high-quality, and expeditious care, given the challenges faced by an academic urban hospital.

A critical pathway for patients with acute chest pain and low risk for short-term adverse cardiac events: role of outpatient stress testing

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluate the safety and feasibility of a critical care pathway protocol in which patients with acute chest pain who are low risk for coronary artery disease and short-term adverse cardiac outcomes receive outpatient stress testing within 72 hours of an emergency department (ED) visit.

METHODS

We performed an observational study of an ED-based chest pain critical pathway in an urban, community hospital in 979 consecutive patients. Patients enrolled in the protocol were observed in the ED before receiving 72-hour outpatient stress testing. The pathway was primarily analyzed for rates of death or myocardial infarction in the 6 months after ED discharge and outpatient stress testing. Secondary outcome measures included need for coronary intervention at initial stress testing and within 6 months after discharge, subsequent ED visits for chest pain, and subsequent hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 871 stress-tested patients aged 40 years or older, who had low risk for coronary artery disease and short-term adverse cardiac events, and had 6-month follow-up, 18 (2%) required coronary intervention, 1 (0.1%) had a myocardial infarction within 1 month, 2 (0.2%) had a myocardial infarction within 6 months, 6 (0.7%) had normal stress test results after discharge but required cardiac catheterization within 6 months, and 5 (0.6%) returned to the ED within 6 months for ongoing chest pain. Hospital admission rates decreased significantly from 31.2% to 26.1% after initiation of the protocol (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with chest pain and low risk for short-term cardiac events, outpatient stress testing is feasible, safe, and associated with decreased hospital admission rates. With an evidence-based protocol, physicians efficiently identify patients at low risk for clinically significant coronary artery disease and short-term adverse cardiac outcomes.