Retrospective validation of acute heart failure risk stratification in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Heart Failure (HF) is a primary diagnosis for hospital admission from the Emergency Department (ED), although not all patients require hospitalization. The Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG) estimates 7-day mortality in patients with acute HF in ED settings, but further validation is needed in the United States (US). OBJECTIVES: To validate EHMRG scores by risk-stratifying patients with acute HF in a large tertiary healthcare center in the US and analyze outcome measures to determine if EHMRG risk scores safely identify low-risk groups that may be discharged or managed in ED observation units (EDOUs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 304 patients with acute HF presenting to an ED at a large, tertiary healthcare center was completed. EHMRG scores were calculated to stratify patients according to published thresholds. Mortality and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates were analyzed. RESULTS: No deaths occurred in very low and low-risk EHMRG groups at 7 days post discharge. 30-day mortality was significantly less in the lower risk groups (3.1%) when compared to all other patients (11.1%). MACE rates at 30 days in the very low risk group (15%) were significantly less when compared to all other patients (31.3%). Hospitalizations occurred in 23.4% of patients in lower risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: ED risk stratification with EHMRG differentiates high-risk patients requiring hospitalization from lower risk patients who can be safely managed in alternative settings with good outcomes. Data supports improved pathways for patients with acute HF during a time of high hospital volumes.

Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial.

Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions. Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence. Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups. Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence. Trial Registration Number: NCT00888537.