Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain

Chest pain attendances to a Paediatric Emergency Department pre- and post-COVID-19 vaccination

Background

Introduction of the mRNA vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increase in cases of peri/myocarditis. In our retrospective cross-sectional study, we aim to (I) describe paediatric chest pain attendance, and (II) study resource utilisation in the Emergency Department (ED) of KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), stratified by pre-pandemic, during the pandemic pre- and post-COVID vaccination introduction in adolescents.

Methods

We reviewed records of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old who presented to our ED with the triage complaint of chest pain between 1 January 2019 to 31 January 2022, and determined the attendance rates, aetiologies and resource utilisation during the above time periods.

Results

There were 2,418 ED attendances for chest pain in our study population. Among 887 inpatient admissions for chest pain, 1.8% were attributed to a cardiac cause. Comparing the pre-pandemic period to the period after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was introduced, ED chest pain rates increased from a median of 0.5% of ED attendances [interquartile range (IQR), 0.3-0.5%] to 0.9% (IQR, 0.7-2.0%) (P<0.001), while admission rates increased from a median of 26.2% of ED attendances (IQR, 24.1-29.1%) to 40.9% (IQR, 37.6-56.6%) (P<0.001). Cardiac enzyme orders among ED visits for chest pain increased from a pre-pandemic median of 0% (IQR, 0.0-2.6%) to a post-vaccination median of 26.1% (IQR, 17.2-56.2%) (P<0.001) and were due to concerns for vaccine-related myocarditis. Seven cases of probable vaccine-related myocarditis presented with chest pain to our ED.

Conclusions

Paediatric chest pain is largely non-cardiac in origin. ED chest pain attendance rates and resource utilisation increased after the introduction of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents.

Clinical decision support to Optimize Care of patients with Atrial Fibrillation or flutter in the Emergency department: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic trial (O'CAFÉ trial)

BACKGROUND

Management of adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter in the emergency department (ED) includes rate reduction, cardioversion, and stroke prevention. Different approaches to these components of care may lead to variation in frequency of hospitalization and stroke prevention actions, with significant implications for patient experience, cost of care, and risk of complications. Standardization using evidence-based recommendations could reduce variation in management, preventable hospitalizations, and stroke risk.

METHODS

We describe the rationale for our ED-based AF treatment recommendations. We also describe the development of an electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to deliver these recommendations to emergency physicians at the point of care. We implemented the CDSS at three pilot sites to assess feasibility and solicit user feedback. We will evaluate the impact of the CDSS on hospitalization and stroke prevention actions using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial across 13 community EDs in Northern California.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that the CDSS intervention will reduce hospitalization of adults with isolated AF or atrial flutter presenting to the ED and increase anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients at the time of ED discharge and within 30 days. If our hypotheses are confirmed, the treatment protocol and CDSS could be recommended to other EDs to improve management of adults with AF or atrial flutter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05009225 .  Registered on 17 August 2021.

A Closer Look at the HEART Score

The history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) score is currently a widely used tool for acute chest pain risk stratification. Relatively soon after its inception in 2008, a number of validation studies on the HEART score showed it to be superior to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores and at least as accurate to other existing scores for predicting short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). However, partly due to its focus on simplicity, the HEART score has some limitations. In this article we review how the HEART score has evolved and taken on various modifications to circumvent some of its limitations. We also highlight the strength of the HEART score in comparison with other risk stratification tools and the current guidelines.

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.

Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain

Background

Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as “rule‐out” binary classification strategies, while others use graded‐risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported.

Methods and Results

This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin‐only strategies (fourth‐generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA‐ACS). The primary outcome was 60‐day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all‐cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60‐day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA‐ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03–0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04–0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low‐risk thresholds. RISTRA‐ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60‐day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91–0.94, P<0.0001).

Conclusions

RISTRA‐ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule‐out approaches, while RISTRA‐ACS was the best‐performing graded‐risk approach. RISTRA‐ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.