Effects of non-dispensing pharmacists integrated in general practice on medication-related hospitalisations.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of non-dispensing pharmacists (NDPs) integrated in general practice on medication-related hospitalisations, drug burden index and costs in patients at high risk of medication problems (being 65 years or older and using 5 or more chronic medications). METHODS: This was a multicentre, nonrandomised, controlled intervention study with pre-post comparison (2013 vs June 2014 to May 2015) in 25 general practices in the Netherlands, comparing NDP-led care (intervention) with 2 current pharmaceutical care models (usual care and usual care plus). In the intervention group, 10 specially trained NDPs were employed in general practices to take integral responsibility for the pharmaceutical care. They provided a broad range of medication therapy management services both on patient level (e.g. clinical medication review) and practice level (e.g. quality improvement projects). In the control groups, pharmaceutical care was provided as usual by general practitioners and community pharmacists, or as usual plus, when pharmacists were additionally trained in performing medication reviews. RESULTS: Overall, 822 medication-related hospitalisations were identified among 11 281 high-risk patients during the intervention period. After adjustment for clustering and potential confounders, the rate ratio of medication-related hospitalisations in the intervention group compared to usual care was 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.82) and 1.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.52) compared to usual care plus. No differences in drug burden index or costs were found. CONCLUSIONS: In general practices with an integrated NDP, the rate of medication-related hospitalisations is lower compared to usual care. No differences with usual care plus were found.

Safety of a 1-hour Rule-out High-sensitive Troponin T Protocol in Patients With Chest Pain at the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The 1-hour rule-out high-sensitive cardiac troponin T protocol (hs-cTnT), in which a serial troponin measurement is performed 1 hour after the first to assess the possibility of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), has been implemented in the European guidelines in 2015. Our aim was to assess the safety of this protocol in low-risk patients in the Emergency Department (ED) when implemented in daily practice. METHODS: Patients with acute chest pain presenting to the ED of our hospital and younger than 75 years were included (May 2013 to October 2014, The Netherlands). Hs-cTnT was measured at presentation (T0) and 1-1.5 hours after T0 (T1). Patients with a first troponin (T0) ≥ 0.012 ug/l were excluded. Primary endpoint was the 6-week occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), percutaneous coronary intervention, significant stenosis managed conservatively, coronary artery bypass grafting, and death. RESULTS: Of the 374 analyzed patients, 16 patients (4.3%) developed 35 MACE. Of these 16 patients with endpoints, 3 were primarily discharged with noncardiac chest pain but returned within 6 weeks with unstable angina. Importantly, no patients experienced an AMI or died during follow-up. CONCLUSION: No AMIs or deaths occurred after introducing the 1-hour hs-cTnT protocol to rule-out ACS in chest pain patients, but other MACE such as unstable angina occurred. Our results suggest the protocol is safe to implement in the ED in The Netherlands.

Comparison of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI score to predict major adverse cardiac events in chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The performance of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI scores were compared in predicting the probability of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in chest pain patients presenting at the emergency department (ED), in particular their ability to identify patients at low risk. METHODS: Chest pain patients presenting at the ED in nine Dutch hospitals were included. The primary outcome was MACE within 6weeks. The HEART score was determined by the treating physician at the ED. The GRACE and TIMI score were calculated based on prospectively collected data. Performance of the scores was compared by calculating AUC curves. Additionally, the number of low-risk patients identified by each score were compared at a fixed level of safety of at least 95% or 98% sensitivity. RESULTS: In total, 1748 patients were included. The AUC of GRACE, HEART, and TIMI were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76%), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.88%) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83%), respectively (all differences in AUC highly statistically significant). At an absolute level of safety of at least 98% sensitivity, the GRACE score identified 231 patients as "low risk" in which 2.2% a MACE was missed; the HEART score identified 381 patients as "low risk" with 0.8% missed MACE. The TIMI score identified no "low risk" patients at this safety level. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score outperformed the GRACE and TIMI scores in discriminating between those with and without MACE in chest pain patients, and identified the largest group of low-risk patients at the same level of safety.

Medical consumption compared for TIMI and HEART score in chest pain patients at the emergency department: a retrospective cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which risk score (TIMI score or HEART score) identifies the largest population of low-risk patients at the emergency department (ED). Furthermore, we retrospectively calculated the corresponding expected decrease in medical consumption if these patients would have been discharged from the ED. METHODS: We performed analyses in two hospitals of the multicentre prospective validation study of the HEART score, executed in 2008 and 2009. Patients with chest pain presenting to the ED were included and information was collected on major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and on hospital admissions and diagnostic procedures within 6 weeks. The TIMI and HEART score were calculated for each patient. RESULTS: We analysed 640 patients (59% male, mean age of 60, cumulative incidence of MACE 17%). An estimated total of €763 468 was spent during follow-up on hospital admission and diagnostic procedures. In total, 256 (40%) patients had a HEART score of 0-3 and were considered low risk (miss rate 1.6%), a total of €64 107 was spent on diagnostic procedures and hospital admission after initial presentation in this group. In comparison, 105 (16%) patients with TIMI score of 0 were considered low risk (miss rate 0%), with a total of €14 670 spent on diagnostic procedures and initial hospital admission costs. With different cut-offs for low risk, HEART 0-2 (miss rate 0.7%), would have resulted in a total of €25 365 in savings, compared with €71 905 when an alternative low risk cut-off for TIMI of TIMI≤1 would be used (miss rate 3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score identifies more patients as low risk compared with the TIMI score, which may lead to a larger reduction in diagnostic procedures and costs in this low-risk group. Future studies should prospectively investigate whether adhering to the HEART score in clinical practice and early discharge of low-risk patients is safe and leads to a reduction in medical consumption.

A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The focus of the diagnostic process in chest pain patients at the emergency department is to identify both low and high risk patients for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The HEART score was designed to facilitate this process. This study is a prospective validation of the HEART score. METHODS: A total of 2440 unselected patients presented with chest pain at the cardiac emergency department of ten participating hospitals in The Netherlands. The HEART score was assessed as soon as the first lab results and ECG were obtained. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were (i) the occurrence of AMI and death, (ii) ACS and (iii) the performance of a coronary angiogram. The performance of the HEART score was compared with the TIMI and GRACE scores. RESULTS: Low HEART scores (values 0-3) were calculated in 36.4% of the patients. MACE occurred in 1.7%. In patients with HEART scores 4-6, MACE was diagnosed in 16.6%. In patients with high HEART scores (values 7-10), MACE occurred in 50.1%. The c-statistic of the HEART score (0.83) is significantly higher than the c-statistic of TIMI (0.75)and GRACE (0.70) respectively (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome, without computer-required calculating. Low HEART scores (0-3), exclude short-term MACE with >98% certainty. In these patients one might consider reserved policies. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10) the high risk of MACE may indicate more aggressive policies.