Simon A. Mahler

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.

Can the HEART Score Safely Reduce Stress Testing and Cardiac Imaging in Patients at Low Risk for Major Adverse Cardiac Events

BACKGROUND Patients with low-risk chest pain have high utilization of stress testing and cardiac imaging, but low rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of this study was to determine whether the HEART score could safely reduce objective cardiac testing in patients with low-risk chest pain. METHODS A cohort of chest pain patients was identified from an emergency department-based observation unit registry. HEART scores were determined using registry data elements and blinded chart review. HEART scores were dichotomized into low (0-3) or high risk (>3). The outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE); a composite end point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization during the index visit or within 30 days. Sensitivity, specificity, and potential reduction of cardiac testing were calculated. RESULTS In a span of 28 months, the registry included 1070 low-risk chest pain patients. MACE occurred in 0.6% (5/904) of patients with low-risk HEART scores compared with 4.2% (7/166) with a high-risk HEART scores (odds ratio = 7.92; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.48-25.25). A HEART score of >3 was 58% sensitive (95% CI: 32-81%) and 85% specific (95% CI: 83-87%) for MACE. The HEART score missed 5 cases of ACS among 1070 patients (0.5%) and could have reduced cardiac testing by 84.5% (904/1070). Combination of serial troponin >0.065 ng/mL or HEART score >3 resulted in sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 72-100%), specificity of 83% (95% CI: 81-85%), and potential reduction in cardiac testing of 82% (879/1070). CONCLUSIONS If used to guide stress testing and cardiac imaging, the HEART score could substantially reduce cardiac testing in a population with low pretest probability of ACS.

Identifying Patients for Early Discharge: Performance of Decision Rules Among Patients with Acute Chest Pain

BACKGROUND The HEART score and North American Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) are decision rules designed to identify acute chest pain patients for early discharge without stress testing or cardiac imaging. This study compares the clinical utility of these decision rules combined with serial troponin determinations. METHODS AND RESULTS A secondary analysis was conducted of 1005 participants in the Myeloperoxidase In the Diagnosis of Acute coronary syndromes Study (MIDAS). MIDAS is a prospective observational cohort of Emergency Department (ED) patients enrolled from 18 US sites with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The ability to identify participants for early discharge and the sensitivity for ACS at 30 days were compared among an unstructured assessment, NACPR, and HEART score, each combined with troponin measures at 0 and 3h. ACS, defined as cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, or unstable angina, occurred in 22% of the cohort. The unstructured assessment identified 13.5% (95% CI 11.5-16%) of participants for early discharge with 98% (95% CI 95-99%) sensitivity for ACS. The NACPR identified 4.4% (95% CI 3-6%) for early discharge with 100% (95% CI 98-100%) sensitivity for ACS. The HEART score identified 20% (95% CI 18-23%) for early discharge with 99% (95% CI 97-100%) sensitivity for ACS. The HEART score had a net reclassification improvement of 10% (95% CI 8-12%) versus unstructured assessment and 19% (95% CI 17-21%) versus NACPR. CONCLUSIONS The HEART score with 0 and 3 hour serial troponin measures identifies a substantial number of patients for early discharge while maintaining high sensitivity for ACS.

Short- vs long-axis approach to ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access: a prospective randomized study☆

OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to determine if the short-axis approach and long-axis approach to ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access (USGPIV) differ in success rate, catheter insertion time, and number of needle sticks. METHODS A convenience sample of emergency department patients aged 18 to 65 years with difficult IV access (2 or more failed landmark attempts) was prospectively randomized to short-axis or long-axis USGPIV. Time from skin puncture to catheter insertion (insertion time) and number of needle sticks were recorded. Number of needle sticks and insertion time were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Forty subjects were enrolled; 20 were randomized to the short-axis and 20 to the long-axis approach. Success rate was 95% (19/20; 95% confidence interval, 85%-100%) in the short-axis group compared with 85% (17/20; 95% confidence interval, 69%-100%) in the long-axis group. All 3 subjects with failed IV placement in the long-axis group had successful rescue USGPIV placement in short axis. Median insertion time was 34 seconds (interquartile range, 35 seconds) for the short-axis group compared with 91 seconds (interquartile range, 59 seconds) for the long-axis group (P = .02). Mean number of needle sticks was 1.5 (±SD 0.7) in the short-axis group compared with 1.4 (±SD 0.7) in the long-axis group (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS Short-axis USGPIV technique required less insertion time than the long-axis technique. Success rate was higher in the short-axis group, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, all of the failed IVs in the long axis were rescued successfully in short axis.

Stress CMR reduces revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine the effect of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in an observation unit (OU) on revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing in intermediate-risk patients with possible acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Intermediate-risk patients commonly undergo hospital admission with high rates of coronary revascularization. It is unknown whether OU-based care with CMR is a more efficient alternative. METHODS A total of 105 intermediate-risk participants with symptoms of ACS but without definite ACS on the basis of the first electrocardiogram and troponin were randomized to usual care provided by cardiologists and internists (n = 53) or to OU care with stress CMR (n = 52). The primary composite endpoint of coronary artery revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing at 90 days was determined. The secondary endpoint was length of stay from randomization to index visit discharge; safety was measured as ACS after discharge. RESULTS The median age of participants was 56 years (range 35 to 91 years), 54% were men, and 20% had pre-existing coronary disease. Index hospital admission was avoided in 85% of the OU CMR participants. The primary outcome occurred in 20 usual care participants (38%) versus 7 OU CMR participants (13%) (hazard ratio: 3.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 8.0, p = 0.006). The OU CMR group experienced significant reductions in all components: revascularizations (15% vs. 2%, p = 0.03), hospital readmissions (23% vs. 8%, p = 0.03), and recurrent cardiac testing (17% vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Median length of stay was 26 h (interquartile range: 23 to 45 h) in the usual care group and 21 h (interquartile range: 15 to 25 h) in the OU CMR group (p < 0.001). ACS after discharge occurred in 3 usual care participants (6%) and no OU CMR participants. CONCLUSIONS In this single-center trial, management of intermediate-risk patients with possible ACS in an OU with stress CMR reduced coronary artery revascularization, hospital readmissions, and recurrent cardiac testing, without an increase in post-discharge ACS at 90 days. (Randomized Investigation of Chest Pain Diagnostic Strategies; NCT01035047).

Early Rule-Out and Rule-In Strategies for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND Patients with chest pain comprise a large proportion of emergency presentations and place a major burden on healthcare resources. Therefore, efforts to safely and rapidly identify those with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are needed. The challenge for clinicians is to accurately identify patients with acute coronary syndromes, while balancing the need to safely and rapidly reassure and discharge those without serious conditions. CONTENT This review summarizes the evidence to date on optimum accelerated strategies for the rule-in and rule-out of AMI, using strategies focused on optimum use of troponin results. Evidence based on both sensitive and highly sensitive troponin assay results is presented. The use of novel biomarkers is also addressed and the combination of biomarkers with other clinical information in accelerated diagnostic strategies is discussed. SUMMARY The majority of patients, who are not at risk of myocardial infarction or other serious harm, may be suitable for discharge directly from the emergency setting using approaches focused on troponin algorithms and accelerated diagnostic protocols. Evidence about the clinical and health economic impact of use of such strategies is needed, as they may have major benefits for both patients and healthcare providers.

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.

Clinical reasoning: are we testing what we are teaching?

The prediction of responses to feedback is confounded by many influences. Feedback is more than simply a message given to a learner. The process of feedback, much more importantly, refers to ensuring that the message is received, to how it is interpreted, and to how it may need to be contextualised for and acted upon by the individual. Even if the feedback is appropriate, accurate and delivered in a manner tailored to the individual learner, it may not come at a time that is right for the learner to be receptive to the message and its implications. Watling et al. raise educators’ awareness of how considering learners’ self-regulatory focus will enhance the ‘feedback conversation’.

Cost analysis of the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin (HEART) Pathway randomized control trial

Introduction: The HEART Pathway is a diagnostic protocol designed to identify low‐risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain that are safe for early discharge. This protocol has been shown to significantly decrease health care resource utilization compared with usual care. However, the impact of the HEART Pathway on the cost of care has yet to be reported. Methods and Results: We performed a cost analysis of patients enrolled in the HEART Pathway trial, which randomized participants to either usual care or the HEART Pathway protocol. For low‐risk patients, the HEART Pathway recommended early discharge from the emergency department without further testing. We compared index visit cost, cost at 30 days, and cardiac‐related health care cost at 30 days between the 2 treatment arms. Costs for each patient included facility and professional costs. Cost at 30 days included total inpatient and outpatient costs, including the index encounter, regardless of etiology. Cardiac‐related health care cost at 30 days included the index encounter and costs adjudicated to be cardiac‐related within that period. Two hundred seventy of the 282 patients enrolled in the trial had cost data available for analysis. There was a significant reduction in cost for the HEART Pathway group at 30 days (median cost savings of

Can we make the basilic vein larger? maneuvers to facilitate ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous access: a prospective cross-sectional study

216 per individual), which was most evident in low‐risk (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction score of 0‐1) patients (median savings of