David M. Nestler

The Chest Pain Choice Decision Aid A Randomized Trial

Background— Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results— The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24–72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34–1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6–21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%–31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions— Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01077037.

Epinephrine in Anaphylaxis: Higher Risk of Cardiovascular Complications and Overdose After Administration of Intravenous Bolus Epinephrine Compared with Intramuscular Epinephrine

BACKGROUND Epinephrine is the drug of choice for the management of anaphylaxis, and fatal anaphylaxis is associated with delayed epinephrine administration. Data on adverse cardiovascular (CV) complications and epinephrine overdose are limited. OBJECTIVE To compare rates of CV adverse events and epinephrine overdoses associated with anaphylaxis management between various routes of epinephrine administration among patients with anaphylaxis in the emergency department. METHODS This was an observational cohort study from April 2008 to July 2012. Patients in the emergency department who met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were included. We collected demographics; route of epinephrine administration; trigger; overdose; and adverse CV events, including arrhythmia, cardiac ischemia, stroke, angina, and hypertension. RESULTS The study cohort included 573 patients, of whom, 301 (57.6%) received at least 1 dose of epinephrine. A total of 362 doses of epinephrine were administered to 301 patients: 67.7% intramuscular (IM) autoinjector, 19.6% IM injection, 8.3% subcutaneous injection, 3.3% intravenous (IV) bolus, and 1.1% IV continuous infusion. There were 8 CV adverse events and 4 overdoses with 8 different patients. All the overdoses occurred when epinephrine was administered IV bolus. Adverse CV events were associated with 3 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 4 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (10% vs 1.3%; odds ratio 8.7 [95% CI, 1.8-40.7], P = .006). Similarly, overdose occurred with 4 of 30 doses of IV bolus epinephrine compared with 0 of 316 doses of IM epinephrine (13.3% vs 0%; odds ratio 61.3 [95% CI, 7.5 to infinity], P < .001). CONCLUSION The risk of overdose and adverse CV events is significantly higher with IV bolus epinephrine administration. Analysis of the data supports the safety of IM epinephrine and a need for extreme caution and further education about IV bolus epinephrine in anaphylaxis.

Antihypertensive medication use is associated with increased organ system involvement and hospitalization in emergency department patients with anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND Risk factors for increased anaphylaxis severity are poorly understood. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been associated with severe anaphylactic reactions in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy. Studies evaluating the association between beta-blockers and severe anaphylaxis have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between antihypertensive medication use and increased anaphylaxis severity. METHODS We included emergency department anaphylaxis patients aged 18 years and older. Markers of severe anaphylaxis were defined as (1) syncope, hypotension, or hypoxia; (2) signs and symptoms involving 3 or more organ systems; and (3) hospitalization. Antihypertensive medications evaluated included beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics. Simple and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the association between antihypertensive medication use and markers of increased anaphylaxis severity. RESULTS Among 302 patients with anaphylaxis, 55 (18%) had syncope, hypoxia, or hypotension, 57 (19%) required hospitalization, and 139 (46%) had 3 or more organ system involvement. After adjusting for age, gender, suspected trigger, and preexisting lung disease, beta-blocker, ACE-inhibitor, diuretic, or antihypertensive medication use in aggregate remained associated with both 3 or more organ system involvement and need for hospital admission. The adjusted associations between antihypertensive medication use in aggregate and 3 or more organ system involvement yielded an odds ratio of 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5-5.2; P=.0008) and with hospitalization an odds ratio of 4.0 (95% CI, 1.9-8.4; P=.0001). CONCLUSIONS In emergency department anaphylaxis patients, antihypertensive medication use is associated with increased organ system involvement and increased odds of hospital admission, independent of age, gender, suspected trigger, or preexisting lung disease.

Sustaining Improvement in Door-to-Balloon Time Over 4 Years The Mayo Clinic ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Protocol

Background—American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend a door-to-balloon time (DTB) <90 minutes for nontransferred patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Systems of care to achieve and sustain this DTB performance over several years have not been previously reported. Methods and Results—The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol was implemented in April 2004 and included activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory by the emergency medicine physician; a single call system to activate the catheterization laboratory; catheterization laboratory staff arrival within 20 to 30 minutes of activation; and real-time performance feedback within 24 to 48 hours. Data were collected on nontransferred STEMI patients. The preimplementation group (June 2002 to March 2004) comprised 96 patients with a median DTB of 97 (interquartile range, 82, 130) minutes, and 40% had a DTB <90 minutes. The postimplementation group (May 2004 to March 2008) comprised 322 patients with a median DTB of 67 (interquartile range, 55, 82) minutes, and 81% had a DTB <90 minutes. Postimplementation DTB was significantly shorter than preimplementation DTB (P<0.001). In the 4-year follow-up after protocol implementation, the DTB performance remained stable over time (P=0.41). Conclusions—The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol implemented strategies to reduce DTB for nontransferred patients with STEMI. DTB was significantly reduced, and the results were sustained over the 4-year follow-up period. Our experience demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of process changes targeting timeliness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Attending and resident satisfaction with feedback in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES Effective feedback is critical to medical education. Little is known about emergency medicine (EM) attending and resident physician perceptions of feedback. The focus of this study was to examine perceptions of the educational feedback that attending physicians give to residents in the clinical environment of the emergency department (ED). The authors compared attending and resident satisfaction with real-time feedback and hypothesized that the two groups would report different overall satisfaction with the feedback they currently give and receive in the ED. METHODS This observational study surveyed attending and resident physicians at 17 EM residency programs through web-based surveys. The primary outcome was overall satisfaction with feedback in the ED, ranked on a 10-point scale. Additional survey items addressed specific aspects of feedback. Responses were compared using a linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for overall satisfaction, a logistic GEE model for dichotomized responses, and an ordinal logistic GEE model for ordinal responses. RESULTS Three hundred seventy-three of 525 (71%) attending physicians and 356 of 596 (60%) residents completed the survey. Attending physicians were more satisfied with overall feedback (mean score 5.97 vs. 5.29, p < 0.001) and with timeliness of feedback (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 2.00; p < 0.001) than residents. Attending physicians were also more likely to rate the quality of feedback as very good or excellent for positive feedback, constructive feedback, feedback on procedures, documentation, management of ED flow, and evidence-based decision-making. Attending physicians reported time constraints as the top obstacle to giving feedback and were more likely than residents to report that feedback is usually attending initiated (OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 3.53 to 14.31; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Attending physician satisfaction with the quality, timeliness, and frequency of feedback given is higher than resident physician satisfaction with feedback received. Attending and resident physicians have differing perceptions of who initiates feedback and how long it takes to provide effective feedback. Knowledge of these differences in perceptions about feedback may be used to direct future educational efforts to improve feedback in the ED.

Circadian Rhythms in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background— Circadian rhythms with regard to time of symptom onset for patients with acute myocardial infarction have been observed, although their relationship to outcomes has been debated. We evaluated these rhythms in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction as a function of the 24-hour circadian cycle. Methods and Results— The relationship between onset of symptoms during the 24-hour circadian cycle and prehospital delays from symptom onset to hospital arrival, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital death was assessed in 2143 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting from 2004-2008 at 1 of 3 tertiary-care healthcare ST-elevation myocardial infarction systems. There was a significant association between time of onset and the circadian cycle, with the greatest percentage (39%) of patients experiencing onset between 8 am and 3 pm (P<0.001). Time of onset was associated with prehospital delay and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients with onset from 12 am to 5:59 am had median prehospital delays of 121 minutes versus 70 minutes from 12 pm to 5:59 pm (P<0.001). Patients with onset time from 12 am to 5:59 am had median door-to-balloon times of 75 minutes versus 60 minutes from 6 am to 11:59 am (P<0.001). Using multivariable modeling to control for baseline patient characteristics, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion, there was no significant association between time of symptom onset with in-hospital death. Conclusions— Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction exhibit significant circadian patterns in symptom onset, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients who develop symptoms from 12 am to 5:59 am present with longer prehospital delays and have longer door-to-balloon times. After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between circadian patterns of time of onset and in-hospital death.

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

BackgroundChest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use.Methods/DesignThis is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Marys Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up.DiscussionThis pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01077037

A multifaceted intervention for patients with anaphylaxis increases epinephrine use in adult emergency department.

BACKGROUND Studies have documented inconsistent emergency anaphylaxis care and low compliance with published guidelines. OBJECTIVE To evaluate anaphylaxis management before and after implementation of an emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis order set and introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors, and to measure the effect on anaphylaxis guideline adherence. METHODS A cohort study was conducted from April 29, 2008, to August 9, 2012. Adult patients in the ED who were diagnosed with anaphylaxis were included. ED management, disposition, self-injectable epinephrine prescriptions, allergy follow-up, and incidence of biphasic reactions were evaluated. RESULTS The study included 202 patients. The median age of the patients was 45.3 years (interquartile range, 31.3-56.4 years); 139 (69%) were women. Patients who presented after order set implementation were more likely to be treated with epinephrine (51% vs 33%; odds ratio [OR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.04-4.04]) and admitted to the ED observation unit (65% vs 44%; OR 2.38 [95% CI, 1.23-4.60]), and less likely to be dismissed home directly from ED (16% vs 29%, OR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.22-1.00]). Eleven patients (5%) had a biphasic reaction. Of these, 5 (46%) had the biphasic reaction in the ED observation unit; 1 patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Six patients (55%) had reactions within 6 hours of initial symptom resolution, of whom 2 were admitted to the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS Significantly higher proportions of patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine and were admitted to the ED observation unit after introduction of epinephrine autoinjectors and order set implementation. Slightly more than half of the biphasic reactions occurred within the recommended observation time of 4 to 6 hours. Analysis of these data suggests that the multifaceted approach to changing anaphylaxis management described here improved guideline adherence.

Effect of a Physician Assistant as Triage Liaison Provider on Patient Throughput in an Academic Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES Overcapacity issues plague emergency departments (EDs). Studies suggest that triage liaison providers (TLPs) may shorten patient length of stay (LOS) and reduce the proportion of patients who leave without being seen (LWBS), but these results are not universal. Previous studies used physicians as TLPs. We evaluated whether a physician assistant (PA), acting as a TLP, would shorten LOS and decrease LWBS rates. METHODS The authors used an observational cohort controlled before-and-after study design with predefined outcome measures, comparing 8 pilot days to 8 control days. The TLP evaluated all Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level 3, 4, and 5 patients, excluding pediatric and behavioral health patients. RESULTS A total of 353 patients were included on pilot days and 371 on control days. LOS was shorter on pilot days than control days (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 229 [168 to 303] minutes vs. 270 [187 to 372] minutes, p < 0.001). Waiting room times were similar between pilot and control days (median [IQR] = 69 [20 to 119] minutes vs. 70 [19 to 137] minutes, p = 0.408), but treatment room times were shorter (median [IQR] = 151 [92 to 223] minutes vs. 187 [110 to 254] minutes, p < 0.001). Finally, a lower proportion of patients LWBS on pilot days (1.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The addition of a PA as a TLP was associated with a 41-minute decrease in median total LOS and a lower proportion of patients who LWBS. The decrease in total LOS is likely attributable to the addition of the TLP, with patients having shorter duration in treatment rooms on pilot days compared to control days.

Effect of an Educational Intervention on Faculty and Resident Satisfaction with Real-time Feedback in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES Effective real-time feedback is critical to medical education. This study tested the hypothesis that an educational intervention related to feedback would improve emergency medicine (EM) faculty and resident physician satisfaction with feedback. METHODS This was a cluster-randomized, controlled study of 15 EM residency programs in 2007-2008. An educational intervention was created that combined a feedback curriculum with a card system designed to promote timely, effective feedback. Sites were randomized either to receive the intervention or to continue their current feedback method. All participants completed a Web-based survey before and after the intervention period. The primary outcome was overall feedback satisfaction on a 10-point scale. Additional items addressed specific aspects of feedback. Responses were compared using a generalized estimating equations model, adjusting for confounders and baseline differences between groups. The study was designed to achieve at least 80% power to detect a one-point difference in overall satisfaction (α = 0.05). RESULTS Response rates for pre- and postintervention surveys were 65.9 and 47.3% (faculty) and 64.7 and 56.9% (residents). Residents in the intervention group reported a mean overall increase in feedback satisfaction scores compared to those in the control group (mean increase 0.96 points, standard error [SE] ± 0.44, p = 0.03) and significantly higher satisfaction with the quality, amount, and timeliness of feedback. There were no significant differences in mean scores for overall and specific aspects of satisfaction between the faculty physician intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS An intervention designed to improve real-time feedback in the ED resulted in higher resident satisfaction with feedback received, but did not affect faculty satisfaction with the feedback given.