Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Versus Stress Echocardiography in Acute Chest Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare early emergency department (ED) use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and stress echocardiography (SE) head-to-head. BACKGROUND: Coronary CTA has been promoted as the early ED chest pain triage imaging method of choice, whereas SE is often overlooked in this setting and involves no ionizing radiation. METHODS: The authors randomized 400 consecutive low- to intermediate-risk ED acute chest pain patients without known coronary artery disease and a negative initial serum troponin level to immediate coronary CTA (n = 201) or SE (n = 199). The primary endpoint was hospitalization rate. Secondary endpoints were ED and hospital length of stay. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular events and radiation exposure. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 55 years, with 43% women and predominantly ethnic minorities (46% Hispanics, 32% African Americans). Thirty-nine coronary CTA patients (19%) and 22 SE patients (11%) were hospitalized at presentation (difference 8%; 95% confidence interval: 1% to 15%; p = 0.026). Median ED length of stay for discharged patients was 5.4 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.2 to 6.4 h) for coronary CTA and 4.7 h (IQR: 3.5 to 6.0 h) for SE (p < 0.001). Median hospital length of stay was 58 h (IQR: 50 to 102 h) for coronary CTA and 34 h (IQR: 31 to 54 h) for SE (p = 0.002). There were 11 and 7 major adverse cardiovascular events for coronary CTA and SE, respectively (p = 0.47), over a median 24 months of follow-up. Median/mean complete initial work-up radiation exposure was 6.5/7.7 mSv for coronary CTA and 0/0.96 mSv for SE (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SE resulted in the hospitalization of a smaller proportion of patients with a shorter length of stay than coronary CTA and was safe. SE should be considered an appropriate option for ED chest pain triage (Stress Echocardiography and Heart Computed Tomography [CT] Scan in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain; NCT01384448).

Building diversity in a complex academic health center.

For 30 years, the many diversity-related health sciences programs targeting the University of Pittsburgh undergraduate campus, school of medicine, schools of the health sciences, clinical practice plan, and medical center were run independently and remained separate within the academic health center (AHC). This lack of coordination hampered their overall effectiveness in promoting diversity and inclusion. In 2007, a group of faculty and administrators from the university and the medical center recognized the need to improve institutional diversity and to better address local health disparities. In this article, the authors describe the process of linking the efforts of these institutions in a way that would be successful locally and applicable to other academic environments. First, they engaged an independent consultant to conduct a study of the AHC's diversity climate, interviewing current and former faculty and trainees to define the problem and identify areas for improvement. Next, they created the Physician Inclusion Council to address the findings of this study and to coordinate future efforts with institutional leaders. Finally, they formed four working committees to address (1) communications and outreach, (2) cultural competency, (3) recruitment, and (4) mentoring and retention. These committees oversaw the strategic development and implementation of all diversity and inclusion efforts. Together these steps led to structural changes within the AHC and the improved allocation of resources that have positioned the University of Pittsburgh to achieve not only diversity but also inclusion and to continue to address the health disparities in the Pittsburgh community.