Jason T. Schaffer

Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Design Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial. Setting Six emergency departments in the United States. Participants 898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events. Results Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention. Conclusions Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.

The availability of prior ECGs improves paramedic accuracy in recognizing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION Early and accurate identification of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by prehospital providers has been shown to significantly improve door to balloon times and improve patient outcomes. Previous studies have shown that paramedic accuracy in reading 12 lead ECGs can range from 86% to 94%. However, recent studies have demonstrated that accuracy diminishes for the more uncommon STEMI presentations (e.g. lateral). Unlike hospital physicians, paramedics rarely have the ability to review previous ECGs for comparison. Whether or not a prior ECG can improve paramedic accuracy is not known. STUDY HYPOTHESIS The availability of prior ECGs improves paramedic accuracy in ECG interpretation. METHODS 130 paramedics were given a single clinical scenario. Then they were randomly assigned 12 computerized prehospital ECGs, 6 with and 6 without an accompanying prior ECG. All ECGs were obtained from a local STEMI registry. For each ECG paramedics were asked to determine whether or not there was a STEMI and to rate their confidence in their interpretation. To determine if the old ECGs improved accuracy we used a mixed effects logistic regression model to calculate p-values between the control and intervention. RESULTS The addition of a previous ECG improved the accuracy of identifying STEMIs from 75.5% to 80.5% (p=0.015). A previous ECG also increased paramedic confidence in their interpretation (p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS The availability of previous ECGs improves paramedic accuracy and enhances their confidence in interpreting STEMIs. Further studies are needed to evaluate this impact in a clinical setting.

Effectiveness of a Decision Aid in Potentially Vulnerable Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

Do Orthostatic Vital Signs Have Utility in the Evaluation of Syncope

BACKGROUND Syncope is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). The differential diagnosis is long and includes benign conditions as well as acute life threats, such as dysrhythmias or pulmonary embolism. OBJECTIVE The specific goals of this review are twofold: 1) to define the diagnostic utility of orthostatic vital signs (OVS) as a test for orthostatic syncope, and 2) to determine whether OVS help diagnose or exclude life-threatening causes of syncope in ED patients. METHODS Three prospective cohort studies plus 2017 national guidelines for syncope management were identified, reviewed, and critically appraised. RESULTS This literature review found that orthostatic hypotension is common among ED patients with syncope and is often diagnosed as the cause of syncope. CONCLUSIONS OVS measurements do not, in isolation, reliably diagnose or exclude orthostatic syncope, nor do they appear to have value in ruling out life-threatening causes of syncope.