David M. Cline

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.

Prehospital care by EMTs and EMT-is in a rural setting: Prolongation of scene times by ALS procedures

Because the initiation of IV lines by emergency medical technicians-Intermediates (EMT-Is) appeared to delay the patients transport to the hospital, we undertook a retrospective study of 370 patients to compare prehospital care rendered by EMTs (EMT-A equivalent) and EMT-Is in a rural setting. Our study was limited to acute medical conditions in which protocols called for IV lines (124 patients with chest pain, 122 with acute respiratory distress, 99 with seizures, and only 25 with cardiac arrest) (the cardiac arrest cases were too few for statistical significance). We found that the difference in scene times for EMTs and EMT-Is not attempting IV lines was 6.1 and 6.9 minutes, respectively. The average scene time of EMT-Is attempting an IV line was 19.6 minutes (P less than .001) compared with EMT times, or times for EMT-Is not attempting an IV line. One hundred twenty-eight of 370 patients received IV medication within ten minutes of arrival in the emergency department, and ten of these patients had their IV lines initiated successfully in the field. Thirty-nine percent of patients with ED IV lines received IV medication within ten minutes of arrival, while only 21% of patients with a field IV line received medication in this period (P less than .05). We conclude that initiating a field IV line in this specific patient population significantly increased scene time and did not improve the chances of these patients receiving IV medication within ten minutes of arrival in the emergency department.

Treatment of hypertension in the emergency department

This review updates concepts of hypertension evaluation and management in patients presenting to the emergency department. It outlines the current challenges faced by emergency physicians in the identification and management of hypertensive patients: In spite of published emergency care guidelines, identification and referral rates remain low in patients presenting to the emergency department with moderate blood pressure (BP) elevations. In patients with severely elevated BP, the evaluation for acute end organ damage remains inconsistent and is symptom-based. Using current consensus guidelines, this review provides an algorithm for the management of the hypertensive emergency department patient. The final section of this review outlines management strategies for specific hypertensive emergencies.

Self-reported influences of hopelessness, health literacy, lifestyle action, and patient inertia on blood pressure control in a hypertensive emergency department population.

Background:In response to almost universally recorded poor blood pressure (BP) control rates, we developed a novel health paradigm model to examine the mindset behind BP control barriers. This approach, termed patient inertia (PtInert), is defined as an individual’s failure to take responsibility for health conditions and proactive change. Methods:PtInert was evaluated through a survey instrument conducted in 85 subjects with a prior history of hypertension seen in an emergency department. The survey tool encompassed the Wide Range Achievement Test 4, the brief symptom inventory, and a PtInert questionnaire. Results:Fifty percent of patients reported slight psychological distress (psychosomatic > anxiety > depression), with 61% possessing hopelessness surrounding complications from high BP no matter their actions. An unanticipated finding was that patients who had a low reading proficiency (83.1 + 16.4 Wide Range Achievement Test 4 standard score) self-reported high levels of hypertension health literacy. Less than half of patients transferred this health literacy into lifestyle changes in diet, exercise, and medication adherence. Although patients felt that they could control their BP and frequently thought about better BP control, 55% of the subjects had uncontrolled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg). Conclusion:Hypertensive patients visiting our emergency department perceive themselves to have adequate hypertension health-related literacy that was not transferred into hypertension health protective behavioral practices. Psychological distress and a sense of hopelessness surrounding BP control contribute to the lack of protective behavioral health practices. Further evaluations of PtInert methods to promote successful proactive change and adherence warrant further study.

Provider Self-Report and Practice: Reassessment and Referral of Emergency Department Patients With Elevated Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND We attempted to identify patient factors associated with blood pressure (BP) reassessment and to compare health-care provider self-reported reassessment and referral to actual practice in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS Provider reassessment and referral practices were determined through systematic review of 1,250 medical records at five EDs. Medical records were included if patients were > or =18 years, nonpregnant, presented with a systolic (SBP) > or =140 or diastolic BP (DBP) > or =90 mm Hg, and discharged. A separate questionnaire obtained self-reported practice patterns of health-care providers. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with patient BP reassessment and referral. RESULTS Of 1,250 patients, only 57% underwent BP reassessment and 9% received a referral for outpatient management. The most significant independent variables related to a reassessment were as follows: treatment of elevated BP in the ED (odds ratio (OR): 6.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.80-20.31), chest pain (OR: 3.90; 95% CI: 2.37-6.42), and presence of an ED reassessment protocol (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.77-3.50). The most significant factors associated with a referral included treatment of elevated BP in the ED (OR: 5.55; 95% CI: 2.72-11.32), presence of a reassessment protocol (OR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.32-5.05), and a BP reassessment (OR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.34-4.89). For self-reported practice patterns, 379 (72%) health-care providers completed questionnaires. Providers consistently overestimated their referral practices, yet the mean referral threshold values reported (SBP, 150 mm Hg; DBP, 93 mm Hg) were lower than the mean BP values of patients who actually received a directed referral (SBP, 170 mm Hg; DBP, 97 mm Hg, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Reassessment and referral of discharged ED patients with elevated BP was infrequent and health-care providers overestimate their reassessment and referral efforts.

CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department

IntroductionOur purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of food and drug administration (FDA) recommended dosing of IV nicardipine versus IV labetalol for the management of acute hypertension.MethodsMulticenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients had 2 systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures ≥180 mmHg and no contraindications to nicardipine or labetalol. Before randomization, the physician specified a target SBP ± 20 mmHg (the target range: TR). The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects meeting TR during the initial 30 minutes of treatment.ResultsOf 226 randomized patients, 110 received nicardipine and 116 labetalol. End organ damage preceded treatment in 143 (63.3%); 71 nicardipine and 72 labetalol patients. Median initial SBP was 212.5 (IQR 197, 230) and 212 mmHg (IQR 200,225) for nicardipine and labetalol patients (P = 0.68), respectively. Within 30 minutes, nicardipine patients more often reached TR than labetalol (91.7 vs. 82.5%, P = 0.039). Of 6 BP measures (taken every 5 minutes) during the study period, nicardipine patients had higher rates of five and six instances within TR than labetalol (47.3% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.026). Rescue medication need did not differ between nicardipine and labetalol (15.5 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.183). Labetalol patients had slower heart rates at all time points (P < 0.01). Multivariable modeling showed nicardipine patients were more likely in TR than labetalol patients at 30 minutes (OR 2.73, P = 0.028; C stat for model = 0.72)ConclusionsPatients treated with nicardipine are more likely to reach the physician-specified SBP target range within 30 minutes than those treated with labetalol.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00765648

Pediatric All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries: Does Legislation Make a Dent?

Objectives: We sought to determine whether North Carolina legislation pertaining to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) has affected the frequency, distribution, or severity of injury in children. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Trauma Registry from 2003 to 2008 along with North Carolina Medical Examiners child fatality data for all children injured on an ATV. Patients were excluded if the accident did not occur in North Carolina, incomplete data, or if the vehicle was not an ATV. We evaluated the use of helmets, the extent of injury, and the mechanism of injury, comparing the patterns before the laws went into effect (2003-2005) with those after the law was enacted (2006-2008). Results: Eighty-eight patients were included for analysis, predominantly white boys with a mean age of 12.1 ± 4.1 years. Children not wearing helmets were 5-fold more likely to have a significant head/neck injury (odds ratio [OR], 5.1; confidence interval [CI], 1.61-15.88; P = 0.01) and 3.7-fold more likely to have a significant chest injury (OR, 3.73; CI, 1.01-13.86; P = 0.05). Passengers were 5-fold more likely to die or require inpatient rehabilitation (OR, 5.0; CI, 1.2-20.8; P = 0.03) and 13.7 times as likely to have a significant injury to their head/neck (OR, 13.7; CI, 3.07-60.93; P = 0.01). Conclusions: There were no significant changes seen in the children injured without and then with legislation, which may be significant if ATV use indeed is increasing. A childs vehicular position was the most significant predictor of morbidity and mortality. Helmet use was not increased once mandated by law. Further efforts to implement such legislation and educate the public are necessary to make a significant change in injuries.

Asymptomatic Hypertension in the Emergency Department: A Matter of Critical Public Health Importance

Asymptomatic hypertension (HTN) is commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED), but in most circumstances little is done about it. While many factors may contribute to this, the failure to recognize asymptomatic HTN as a public health problem is particularly important. Given the established long-term consequences of elevated blood pressure (BP), a reconsideration of methods that could enhance surveillance and intervention in the ED is needed. In this article, we discuss the relevant epidemiology of asymptomatic HTN and present a novel approach using a modified version of the Haddons matrix to systematically address the challenges that contribute to ineffective screening and suboptimal outcomes.

Performance of the EDACS-accelerated Diagnostic Pathway in a Cohort of US Patients with Acute Chest Pain.

BACKGROUND The Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score-Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) is a decision aid designed to safely identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge. Derivation and validation studies in Australasia have demonstrated high sensitivity (99%-100%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). OBJECTIVES To validate the EDACS-ADP in a cohort of US ED patients with symptoms suspicious for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway Randomized Controlled Trial was conducted. This single-site trial enrolled 282 ED patients≥21 years old with symptoms concerning for ACS, inclusive of all cardiac risk levels. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by the EDACS-ADP based on EDACS, electrocardiogram, and serial troponins. Potential early discharge rate and sensitivity for MACE at 30 days, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization were calculated. RESULTS MACE occurred in 17/282 (6.0%) participants, including no deaths, 16/282 (5.6%) with MI, and 1/282 (0.4%) with coronary revascularization without MI. The EDACS-ADP identified 188/282 patients [66.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 60.8%-72.1%] as low risk. Of these, 2/188 (1.1%, 95% CI: 0.1%-3.9%) had MACE at 30 days. EDACS-ADP was 88.2% (95% CI: 63.6%-98.5%) sensitive for MACE, identifying 15/17 patients. Of the 2 patients identified as low risk with MACE, 1 had MI and 1 had coronary revascularization without MI. CONCLUSIONS Within a US cohort of ED patients with symptoms concerning for ACS, sensitivity for MACE was 88.2%. We are unable to validate the EDACS-ADP as sufficiently sensitive for clinical use.

Evaluation, management, and referral of elderly emergency department patients with elevated blood pressure.

ObjectivesTo determine blood pressure (BP) reassessment rates and to describe the evaluation and outpatient referral rates of elderly emergency department (ED) patients with elevated BP. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort of patients who were at least 60 years, presented with a systolic BP of at least 140 mmHg or diastolic BP at least 90 mmHg, and were discharged from the ED. BP measurements, ancillary testing, and discharge instructions were obtained from a random selection of medical records. ResultsOf 267 patients 198 (74%) underwent a BP reassessment. Factors associated with a reassessment included receipt of an antihypertensive, symptom of chest pain, care in an ED with a BP reassessment protocol, and increasing age. Of the 241 patients who maintained an elevated BP, 88 (37%) had no prior history of hypertension, 36 (15%) had a prior history but had untreated hypertension, and 117 (49%) had known, treated, but poorly controlled hypertension. Ancillary testing was completed on 144 (60%) patients and only 24 patients received an antihypertensive medication while in the ED. These patients had higher systolic (177 vs. 156 mmHg) and diastolic values (98 vs. 84 mmHg) than those who did not receive antihypertensive medications (P<0.01). At discharge, 29 (12%) patients received a directed referral and 28 (12%) received any intervention, with the provision of antihypertensive prescription the most common in 17 (7%). ConclusionUnlike other ED-based studies of adult hypertensive patients, BP reassessment in the elderly occurred in the majority. Referral and intervention rates, however, were low.