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.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients evaluated in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study of 801 cases

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has extracted devastating tolls. Despite its pervasiveness, robust information on disease characteristics in the emergency department (ED) and how that information predicts clinical course remain limited.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first ED visit from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in our health system, from February 21, 2020 to April 5, 2020. We reviewed each patient's ED visit(s) and included the first visit with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We collected demographic, clinical, and treatment variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between patient characteristics and 2 primary outcomes: a critical outcome and hospitalization from index visit. Our critical outcome was defined as death or advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula or greater) within 21 days.

RESULTS

Of the first 1030 encounters, 801 met our inclusion criteria: 15% were over age 75 years, 47% were female, and 24% were non-Hispanic white. We found 161 (20%) had a critical outcome and 393 (49%) were hospitalized. Independent predictors of a critical outcome included a history of hypertension, abnormal chest x-ray, elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation). Independent predictors of hospitalization included abnormal pulmonary auscultation, elevated BUN, measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, diverse study of ED patients with COVID-19, we have identified numerous clinical characteristics that have independent associations with critical illness and hospitalization.

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.

Automated Retrospective Calculation of the EDACS and HEART Scores in a Multicenter Prospective Cohort of Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients

OBJECTIVES

Coronary risk scores are commonly applied to emergency department patients with undifferentiated chest pain. Two prominent risk score-based protocols are the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) and the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin (HEART) pathway. Since prospective documentation of these risk determinations can be challenging to obtain, quality improvement projects could benefit from automated retrospective risk score classification methodologies.

METHODS

EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway data elements were prospectively collected using a Web-based electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool over a 24-month period (2018-2019) among patients presenting with chest pain to 13 EDs within an integrated health system. Data elements were also extracted and processed electronically (retrospectively) from the electronic health record (EHR) for the same patients. The primary outcome was agreement between the prospective/eCDS and retrospective/EHR data sets on dichotomous risk protocol classification, as assessed by kappa statistics (ĸ).

RESULTS

There were 12,110 eligible eCDS uses during the study period, of which 66 and 47% were low-risk encounters by EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway, respectively. Agreement on low-risk status was acceptable for EDACS-ADP (ĸ = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.75) and HEART pathway (ĸ = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.70) and for the continuous scores (interclass correlation coefficients = 0.87 and 0.84 for EDACS and HEART, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated retrospective determination of low risk status by either the EDACS-ADP or the HEART pathway provides acceptable agreement compared to prospective score calculations, providing a feasible risk adjustment option for use in large data set analyses.

Validation of the Pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) in a Community Emergency Department Setting

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) is a validated clinical tool for assessing a child's probability of appendicitis. Our objective was to assess the performance of the pARC in community emergency departments (EDs) and to compare its performance with that of the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective validation study from October 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, in 11 community EDs serving general populations. Patients aged 5 to 20.9 years and with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and less than or equal to 5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain were eligible for study enrollment. Our primary outcome was the presence or absence of appendicitis within 7 days of the index visit. We reported performance characteristics and secondary outcomes by pARC risk strata and compared the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of the PAS and pARC.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2,089 patients with a mean age of 12.4 years, 46% of whom were male patients. Appendicitis was confirmed in 353 patients (16.9%), of whom 55 (15.6%) had perforated appendixes. Fifty-four percent of patients had very low (<5%) or low (5% to 14%) predicted risk, 43% had intermediate risk (15% to 84%), and 4% had high risk (≥85%). In the very-low- and low-risk groups, 1.4% and 3.0% of patients had appendicitis, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92) for the pARC compared with 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.82) for the PAS.

CONCLUSION

The pARC accurately assessed appendicitis risk for children aged 5 years and older in community EDs and the pARC outperformed the PAS.

Increasing Safe Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Controlled Pragmatic Trial

BACKGROUND

Many low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE.

DESIGN

Controlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676).

SETTING

All 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California).

PATIENTS

Adult ED patients with acute PE.

INTERVENTION

Ten intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation.

LIMITATION

Lack of random allocation.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Garfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.