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

Target Heart Rate Formulas for Exercise Stress Testing: What Is the Evidence?

Exercise stress testing (EST) is commonly used to evaluate chest pain, with some labs using 85% of age-predicted maximum heart rate (APMHR) as an endpoint for EST. The APMHR is often calculated using the formula 220-age. However, the accuracy of this formula and 85% APMHR as an endpoint may be questioned. Moreover, failing to reach 85% APMHR (known as chronotropic insufficiency) may also indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis, but measurements, such as percentage heart rate reserve (%HRR), maximum rate pressure product (MRPP), and the maximum metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs) reached during EST may provide better prediction of cardiovascular outcomes than not reaching 85% of APMHR. There is a need to incorporate comprehensive measurements to improve the diagnostic and prognostic capabilities of EST.

Safety and Effectiveness of the High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin HEART Pathway in Patients With Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) can be used with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin to risk stratify emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. However, data on whether a high-sensitivity HEART Pathway (hs-HP) are safe and effective is lacking.

METHODS

An interrupted time series study was conducted at 5 North Carolina sites in 26 126 adult emergency department patients being investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome and without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients were accrued into 16-month preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts with a 6-month wash-in phase. Preimplementation (January 2019 to April 2020), the traditional HEART Pathway was used with 0- and 3-hour contemporary troponin measures (Siemens). In the postimplementation period (November 2020 to February 2022), a modified hs-HP was used with 0- and 2-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (Beckman Coulter) measures. The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes were 30-day all-cause death or myocardial infarction and 30-day hospitalizations. These outcomes and early discharge rate (emergency department discharge without stress testing or coronary angiography) were determined from health records and death index data. Outcomes were compared preimplementation versus postimplementation using χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 12 317 and 13 809 patients, respectively, of them 52.7% (13 767/26 126) were female with a median age of 54 years (interquartile range, 42-66). Rates of 30-day death or MI were 6.8% (945/13 809) postimplementation and 7.7% (948/12 317) preimplementation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90-1.11]). hs-HP implementation was associated with 19.9% (95% CI, 18.7%-21.1%) higher early discharges (post versus pre: 63.6% versus 43.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.10-2.35]). The hs-HP was also associated with 16.1% (95% CI, 14.9%-17.3%) lower 30-day hospitalizations (postimplementation versus preimplementation, 31.4% versus 47.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.48-0.54]). Among early discharge patients, death or myocardial infarction occurred in 0.5% (41/8780) postimplementation versus 0.4% (22/5383) preimplementation (P=0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

hs-HP implementation is associated with increased early discharges without increasing adverse events. These findings support the use of a modified hs-HP to improve chest pain care.

Performances of HEART score to predict 6-month prognostic of emergency department patients with chest pain: a retrospective cohort analysis

Chest pain is a frequent cause of patient admissions in emergency departments (EDs). Clinical scores can help in the management of chest pain patients with an undefined impact on the appropriateness of hospitalization or discharge when compared to usual care. The aim of this study was to assess the performances of the HEART score to predict the 6-month prognostic of patients presenting to the ED of a tertiary referral university hospital with non-traumatic chest pain. From 7040 patients presenting with chest pain from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017, after applying exclusion criteria (ST-segment elevation >1 mm, shock, absence of telephone number) we selected a sample of 20% chosen randomly. We retrospectively assessed the clinical course, definitive diagnosis, and HEART score according to ED final report. Follow-up was made by telephone interview with discharged patients. In hospitalized patients, clinical records were analyzed to evaluate major adverse cardiac events (MACE) incidence. The primary endpoint was MACE, comprising cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or unscheduled revascularization at 6 months. We assessed the diagnostic performance of the HEART score in ruling out MACE at 6 months. We also assessed the performance of ED usual care in the management of chest pain patients. Of 1119 screened, 1099 were included for analysis after excluding patients lost to follow-up; 788 patients (71.70%) had been discharged and 311 (28.30%) were hospitalized. Incident MACE was 18.3% (n = 205). The HEART score was retrospectively calculated in 1047 patients showing increasing MACE incidence according to risk category (0.98% for low risk, 38.02% for intermediate risk, and 62.21% for high risk). Low-risk category allowed to safely exclude MACE at 6 months with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. Usual care diagnostic performance showed 97.38% sensitivity, 98.24% specificity, 95.5% positive predictive value, and 99% NPV, with an overall accuracy of 98.00%. In ED patients with chest pain, a low HEART score is associated with a very low risk of MACE at 6 months.

Derivation and validation of a high sensitivity troponin-T HEART pathway

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway is widely used for chest pain risk stratification but has yet to be optimized for high sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) assays.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of STOP-CP, a prospective cohort study enrolling adult ED patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome at 8 sites in the United States (US). Patients had a 0- and 1-hour hs-cTnT measured and a HEAR score completed. A derivation set consisting of 729 randomly selected participants was used to derive a hs-cTnT HEART Pathway with rule-out, observation, and rule-in groups for 30-day cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Optimal baseline and 1-hour troponin cutoffs were selected using generalized cross validation to achieve a negative predictive value (NPV) >99% for rule out and positive predictive value (PPV) >60% or maximum Youden index for rule-in. Optimal 0-1-hour delta values were derived using generalized cross validation to maximize the NPV for the rule-out group and PPV for the rule-in group. The hs-cTnT HEART Pathway performance was validated in the remaining cohort (n = 723).

RESULTS

Among the 1452 patients, 30-day cardiac death or MI occurred in 12.7% (184/1452). Within the derivation cohort the optimal hs-cTnT HEART Pathway classified 36.5% (266/729) into the rule-out group, yielding a NPV of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.2-100) for 30-day cardiac death or MI. The rule-in group included 15.4% (112/729) with a PPV of 55.4% (95% CI: 46.2-64.6). In the validation cohort, the hs-cTnT HEART Pathway ruled-out 37.6% (272/723), of which 2 had 30-day cardiac death or MI, yielding a NPV of 99.3% (95% CI: 98.3-100). The rule-in group included 14.5% (105/723), yielding a PPV of 57.1% (95% CI: 47.7-66.6).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel hs-cTnT HEART Pathway with serial 0- and 1-hour hs-cTnT measures has high NPV and moderate PPV for 30-day cardiac death or MI.

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.

The Changing Role of Chest Pain in the Emergency Department Observation Unit

BACKGROUND

This study objective was to describe changes in the utilization of a protocol-driven emergency department observation unit (EDOU) for chest pain over time.

METHODS

This is a retrospective serial cross-sectional study of data from a clinical data warehouse of a single integrated healthcare system. We estimated long-term trends (2009-2019) in EDOU visits at 4 system hospitals, using monthly proportions as the main outcome, and month of visit as the exposure variable, accounting for age and sex. Rate changes associated with compulsory use of the History, EKG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score in 2016 were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 83,168 EDOU admissions among 1.3 million ED visits during the study interval, with an average admission rate of 5.9% of ED visits. The most common conditions were chest pain (41.2%), transient ischemic attack (7.8%), dehydration (6.3%), syncope (5.8%), and abdominal pain (5.2%). In each hospital, there was a temporal annual decline in the proportion of EDOU visits for chest pain protocols ranging from -7.9% to -2.8%, an average rate of -3.3% per year (95% CI, -4.6% to -2.0%) or a 54% (from 54% to 25%) relative decline in over the 11-year study interval. This decline was significantly steeper in younger middle-aged patients (ages 39-49). The HEART score intervention had a small impact on baseline decline of -3.1% at the 2 intervention hospitals, reducing it by -1.5% (95% CI, -2.2% to -0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of the EDOU for chest pain decreased over time, with corresponding increases in other conditions. This decline preceded the introduction of the HEART score.

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.

Guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department (GRACE): Recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the emergency department

This first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low-risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.

A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated.

RESULTS

From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events.

CONCLUSION

ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.

Why Won't Emergency Physicians Discharge Patients With a Low HEART Score From an Observation Unit Without Further Evaluation?

BACKGROUND

The History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) score is a prospectively validated risk stratification tool for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. Data demonstrate that patients with low HEART scores (0-3) can be safely discharged from the ED. ED physicians, however, may be reluctant to discharge patients based on the score.

OBJECTIVE

To identify specific factors why ED physicians are reluctant to discharge patients with low-risk HEART scores from an ED observation unit (EDOU) without further evaluation.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective, cross-sectional analysis of ED patients from an urban ED placed in an EDOU for evaluation of chest pain, from July 1, 2016, to August 31, 2016. ED physicians completed a questionnaire that included documentation of patient HEART score and if the patient would or would not be a good candidate for outpatient stress testing or follow-up within 72 hours without further EDOU testing or consultant evaluation. Providers selected reasons why patients were not a good candidate for outpatient stress testing/follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 279 patient questionnaires completed, 42% (117/279) had a HEART score of 0-3. Within this group, 54.7% (64/117) of the patients were identified as not being good candidates for outpatient stress testing/follow-up within 72 hours because of concerns for poor follow-up (n = 14), concerning risk factors (n = 14), concerning symptoms (n = 11), and other (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

ED physicians in this urban ED felt that over half of patients with a low-risk HEART score were not good candidates for discharge from the EDOU without further evaluation due to poor follow-up, concerning risk factors or symptoms, or coexisting conditions.

Identification of very low-risk acute chest pain patients without troponin testing

BACKGROUND

The HEART Pathway combines a History ECG Age Risk factor (HEAR) score and serial troponins to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, it is unclear whether patients with HEAR scores of <1 require troponin testing. The objective of this study is to measure the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate among patients with <1 HEAR scores and determine whether serial troponin testing is needed to achieve a miss rate <1%.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study was conducted. HEART Pathway risk assessments (HEAR scores and serial troponin testing at 0 and 3 hours) were completed by the providers on adult patients with chest pain from three US sites between November 2014 and January 2016. MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days was determined. The proportion of patients with HEAR scores of <1 diagnosed with MACE within 30 days was calculated. The impact of troponin testing on patients with HEAR scores of <1 was determined using Net Reclassification Improvement Index (NRI).

RESULTS

Providers completed HEAR assessments on 4979 patients and HEAR scores<1 occurred in 9.0% (447/4979) of patients. Among these patients, MACE at 30 days occurred in 0.9% (4/447; 95% CI 0.2% to 2.3%) with two deaths, two MIs and 0 revascularisations. The sensitivity and negative predictive value for MACE in the HEAR <1 was 97.8% (95%CI 94.5% to 99.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.7% to 99.8%), respectively, and were not improved by troponin testing. Troponin testing in patients with HEAR <1 correctly reclassified two patients diagnosed with MACE, and was elevated among seven patients without MACE yielding an NRI of 0.9% (95%CI -0.7 to 2.4%).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that patients with HEAR scores of 0 and 1 represent a very low-risk group that may not require troponin testing to achieve a missed MACE rate <1%. Trial registration number NCT02056964.

Use of conventional cardiac troponin assay for diagnosis of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: 'The Ottawa Troponin Pathway'

Background

Serial conventional cardiac troponin (cTn) measurements 6–9 hours apart are recommended for non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) diagnosis. We sought to develop a pathway with 3-hour changes for major adverse cardiac event (MACE) identification and assess the added value of the HEART [History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, Troponin] score to the pathway.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled adults with NSTEMI symptoms at two-large emergency departments (EDs) over 32-months. Patients with STEMI, unstable angina and one cTn were excluded. We collected baseline characteristics, Siemens Vista conventional cTnI at 0, 3 or 6-hours after ED presentation; HEART score predictors; disposition and ED length of stay (LOS). Adjudicated primary outcome was 15-day MACE (acute MI, revascularization, or death due to cardiac ischemia/unknown cause). We analyzed multiples of 99th percentile cut-off cTnI values (45, 100 and 250ng/L).

Results

1,683 patients (mean age 64.7 years; 55.3% female; median LOS 7-hours; 88 patients with 15-day MACE) were included. 1,346 (80.0%) patients with both cTnI≤45 ng/L; and 155 (9.2%) of the 213 patients with one value≥100ng/L but both<250ng/L or ≤20% change did not suffer MACE. Among 124 patients (7.4%) with one of the two values>45ng/L but<100ng/L based on 3 or 6-hour cTnI, one patient with absolute change<10ng/L and 6 of the 19 patients with≥20ng/L were diagnosed with NSTEMI (patients with Δ10-19ng/L between first and second cTnI had third one at 6-hours). Based on the results, we developed the Ottawa Troponin Pathway (OTP) with a 98.9% sensitivity (95% CI 93.8–100%) and 94.6% specificity (95% CI 93.3–95.6%). Addition of the HEART score improved the sensitivity to 100% (95% CI 95.9–100%) and decreased the specificity to 26.5% (95% CI 24.3–28.7%).

Conclusion

The OTP with conventional cTnI 3-hours apart, should lead to better NSTEMI identification particularly those with values >99th percentile, standardize management and reduce the ED LOS.

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.

Implementation of an Opioid Detoxification Management Pathway Reduces Emergency Department Length of Stay

OBJECTIVES

With the rise of opioid use in the United States, the increasing demand for treatment for opioid use disorders presents both a challenge and an opportunity to develop new care pathways for emergency department (ED) patients seeking opioid detoxification. We set out to improve the care of patients presenting to our ED seeking opioid detoxification by implementing a standardized management pathway and to measure the effects of this intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a before-after study of the effects of an opioid detoxification management pathway on ED length of stay (EDLOS), use of resources (social worker consultation, laboratory tests obtained), and return visits to the same ED within 30 days of discharge. All data were collected retrospectively by review of the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 107 patients presented to the ED that met criteria, 52 in the intervention period and 55 in the preintervention period. Median EDLOS in the intervention period was 152 (interquartile range [IQR] = 93-237) minutes compared to 312 (IQR = 187-468) minutes in the preintervention period (p < 0.001). Patients in the intervention period less frequently had a social work consultation (32.7% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.001) or had laboratory tests obtained (32.7% vs 74.5%, p < 0.001) and more frequently were prescribed a medication for withdrawal symptoms (57.7% vs. 29.1%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an opioid detoxification management pathway reduced EDLOS, reduced utilization of resources, and increased the proportion of patients prescribed medications for symptom relief.

Comparison of 3 Symptom Classification Methods to Standardize the History Component of the HEART Score

OBJECTIVES

The History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score enables rapid risk stratification of emergency department patients presenting with chest pain. However, the subjectivity in scoring introduced by the history component has been criticized by some clinicians. We examined the association of 3 objective scoring models with the results of noninvasive cardiac testing.

METHODS

Medical records for all patients evaluated in the chest pain center of an academic medical center during a 1-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Each patient's history component score was calculated using 3 models developed by the authors. Differences in the distribution of HEART scores for each model, as well as their degree of agreement with one another, as well as the results of cardiac testing were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven hundred forty nine patients were studied, 58 of which had an abnormal stress test or computed tomography coronary angiography. The mean HEART scores for models 1, 2, and 3 were 2.97 (SD 1.17), 2.57 (SD 1.25), and 3.30 (SD 1.35), respectively, and were significantly different (P < 0.001). However, for each model, the likelihood of an abnormal cardiovascular test did not correlate with higher scores on the symptom component of the HEART score (P = 0.09, 0.41, and 0.86, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

While the objective scoring models produced different distributions of HEART scores, no model performed well with regards to identifying patients with abnormal advanced cardiac studies in this relatively low-risk cohort. Further studies in a broader cohort of patients, as well as comparison with the performance of subjective history scoring, is warranted before adoption of any of these objective models.

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.

The HEART Pathway and Hospital Cost Savings

Chest pain is a common complaint in emergency departments. Several guidelines and tools exist to help the clinician determine need for hospitalization. For low-risk patients, clinical judgment can underestimate a patient's risk of major adverse cardiac event. Implementation of an advanced diagnostic protocol with the HEART Pathway can reduce hospital cost. For our academic institution, we saw an approximate $1 million in total savings during the initial implementation year along with increased outpatient visits. In addition, an increase in outpatient visits confirmed previous estimates that implementation of the HEART Pathway results in >20% reduction of hospital costs. We also identify challenges and considerations for facilities looking to repeat our successes.

Implementation of a Risk Stratification and Management Pathway for Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

Chest pain is a common complaint in the emergency department, and a small but important minority represents an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Variation in diagnostic workup, risk stratification, and management may result in underuse, misuse, and/or overuse of resources.

METHODS

From July to October 2014, we conducted a prospective cohort study in an academic medical center by implementing a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP) for chest pain based on the HEART score. In addition to capturing adherence to the SCAMP algorithm and reasons for any deviations, we measured troponin sample timing; rates of stress test utilization; length of stay (LOS); and 30-day rates of revascularization, ACS, and death.

RESULTS

We identified 239 patients during the enrollment period who were eligible to enter the SCAMP, of whom 97 patients were entered into the pathway. Patients were risk stratified into one of 3 risk tiers: high (n = 3), intermediate (n = 40), and low (n = 54). Among low-risk patients, recommendations for troponin testing were not followed in 56%, and 11% received stress tests contrary to the SCAMP recommendation. None of the low-risk patients had elevated troponin measurements, and none had an abnormal stress test. Mean LOS in low-risk patients managed with discordant plans was 22:26 h/min, compared with 9:13 h/min in concordant patients (P < 0.001). Mean LOS in intermediate-risk patients with stress testing was 25:53 h/min, compared with 7:55 h/min for those without (P < 0.001). At 30 days, 10% of intermediate-risk patients and 0% of low-risk patients experienced an ACS event (risk difference 10% [0.7%-19%]); none experienced revascularization or death. The most frequently cited reason for deviation from the SCAMP was lack of confidence in the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with SCAMP recommendations for low- and intermediate-risk patients was poor, largely due to lack of confidence in the tool. However, in our study population, outcomes suggest that deviation from the SCAMP yielded no additional clinical benefit while significantly prolonging emergency department LOS.

Improved Assessment of Chest pain Trial (IMPACT): assessing patients with possible acute coronary syndromes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of the Improved Assessment of Chest pain Trial (IMPACT) protocol, a strategy for accelerated assessment of patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

IMPACT was an intervention trial at a single tertiary referral hospital (Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital) during February 2011 - March 2014. 1366 prospectively recruited patients presenting to the ED with symptoms of suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were stratified into groups at low, intermediate or high risk of an ACS.

INTERVENTION

High risk patients were treated according to NHFA/CSANZ guidelines. Low and intermediate risk patients underwent troponin testing (sensitive assay) 0 and 2 hours after presentation. Intermediate risk patients underwent objective testing after the second troponin test; low risk patients were discharged without further objective testing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was an ACS within 30 days of presentation. Secondary outcomes were ED and hospital lengths of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The IMPACT protocol stratified 244 (17.9%) patients to low risk, 789 (57.7%) to intermediate risk, and 333 (24.4%) to high risk categories. The overall 30-day ACS rate was 6.6%, but there were no ACS events in the low risk group, and 14 (1.8%) in the intermediate risk group. The median hospital LOS was 5.1 hours (IQR, 4.2-5.6 h) for low risk and 7.7 hours (IQR, 6.1-21 h) for intermediate risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPACT protocol safely and efficiently allowed a large proportion of patients presenting to EDs with chest pain to undergo accelerated assessment for risk of an ACS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000206921.

Systematic review of the effects of care provided with and without diagnostic clinical prediction rules

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are worthwhile if they improve patient outcomes or provide benefits such as reduced resource use, without harming patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of diagnostic CPRs on patient and process of care outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and a trial registry and performed citation and reference checks, for randomised trials comparing a diagnostic strategy with and without a CPR. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and similar studies meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies evaluating diagnostic CPRs for 14 conditions were included. A clinical management decision was the primary outcome in the majority of studies. Most studies were judged to be at high or uncertain risk of bias on ≥3 of 6 domains. Details of study interventions and implementation were infrequently reported.For suspected Group A Streptococcus throat infection, diagnostic CPRs reduced symptoms (1 study) and antibiotic prescriptions (5 studies, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). For suspected cardiac chest pain, diagnostic strategies incorporating a CPR improved early discharge rates (1 study), decreased objective cardiac testing (1 study) and decreased hospitalisations (1 study). For ankle injuries, Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced radiography when used with clinical examination (1 study) but had no effect on length of stay as a triage test (1 study). For suspected acute appendicitis, CPRs had no effect on rates of perforated appendix (1 study) or the number of non-therapeutic operations (5 studies, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.08). For suspected pneumonia, CPRs reduced antibiotic prescribing without unfavourable outcomes (3 studies). For children with possible serious bacterial infection, diagnostic CPRs did not improve process of care outcomes (3 studies).

CONCLUSION

There are few randomised trials of diagnostic CPRs, and patient outcomes are infrequently reported. Diagnostic CPRs had a positive effect on process outcomes in some clinical conditions; however, many studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and the results may be context specific. Future studies should seek to detail how the CPR might alter the diagnostic pathway, report effects on both patient and process outcomes, and improve reporting of the study interventions and implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this review was not registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic review protocols. The review was conceived and protocol prepared prior to the launch of PROSPERO in February 2011.