Is rapid acute coronary syndrome evaluation with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin less costly? An economic evaluation.

Objective: Protocols to evaluate for myocardial infarction (MI) using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) have the potential to drive costs upward due to the added sensitivity. We performed an economic evaluation of an accelerated protocol (AP) to evaluate for MI using hs-cTn to identify changes in costs of treatment and length of stay compared with conventional testing. Methods: We performed a planned secondary economic analysis of a large, cluster randomized trial across nine emergency departments (EDs) from July 2020 to April 2021. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older with clinical suspicion for MI. In the AP, patients could be discharged without further testing at 0 h if they had a hs-cTnI < 4 ng/L and at 1 h if the initial value were 4 ng/L and the 1-h value ≤7 ng/L. Patients in the standard of care (SC) protocol used conventional cTn testing at 0 and 3 h. The primary outcome was the total cost of treatment, and the secondary outcome was ED length of stay. Results: Among 32,450 included patients, an AP had no significant differences in cost (+$89, CI: -$714, $893 hospital cost, +$362, CI: -$414, $1138 health system cost) or ED length of stay (+46, CI: -28, 120 min) compared with the SC protocol. In lower acuity, free-standing EDs, patients under the AP experienced shorter length of stay (-37 min, CI: -62, 12 min) and reduced health system cost (-$112, CI: -$250, $25). Conclusion: Overall, the implementation of AP using hs-cTn does not result in higher costs.

Sleep pattern and predictors of daily versus as-needed hypnotics use in middle-aged and older adults with insomnia.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to examine the sleep pattern and predictors of daily vs. as-needed use of hypnotics in middle-aged and older adults with insomnia. METHODS: Patients aged 50-75 who use hypnotics for insomnia were identified via electronic medical records and were recruited. Data about sociodemographics, mood and cognitive screening measures, and questions related to sleep patterns were collected through an interview conducted over the phone. RESULTS: A sample of 66 participants was recruited, of which 69.7% were females. Three quarters (49/66, 74.2%) used hypnotics daily, with 43% (21/49) of daily hypnotics users sleeping more than 8 h per night. Two-fifths (26/66, 39.4%) of participants still had clinically significant insomnia even after taking hypnotics. After adjusting for age, years of hypnotics use, sleeping hours per night, PHQ-2 score, and frequency of pain at night, the logistic regression model showed that younger age (p = 0.023) and longer sleeping hours per night (p = 0.025) were significantly associated with daily hypnotics use when compared to as needed hypnotics use. CONCLUSION: Many hypnotic users still have clinically significant insomnia and poor quality of sleep as reflected by perceived longer sleep duration and more daytime napping which could be related to drug-related residual sedation. Hypnotic use may not be the best solution for insomnia treatment in an older population, and physicians should regularly reassess the use of hypnotics.