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 $216 per individual), which was most evident in low-risk (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction score of 0-1) patients (median savings of $253 per patient) and driven primarily by lower cardiac diagnostic costs in the HEART Pathway group. CONCLUSIONS: Using the HEART Pathway as a decision aid for patients with undifferentiated chest pain resulted in significant cost savings.

Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with observation unit care reduces cost for patients with emergent chest pain: a randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether imaging with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an observation unit would reduce medical costs among patients with emergent non-low-risk chest pain who otherwise would be managed with an inpatient care strategy. METHODS: Emergency department patients (n=110) at intermediate or high probability for acute coronary syndrome without electrocardiographic or biomarker evidence of a myocardial infarction provided consent and were randomized to stress cardiac MRI in an observation unit versus standard inpatient care. The primary outcome was direct hospital cost calculated as the sum of hospital and provider costs. Estimated median cost differences (Hodges-Lehmann) and distribution-free 95% confidence intervals (Moses) were used to compare groups. RESULTS: There were 110 participants with 53 randomized to cardiac MRI and 57 to inpatient care; 8 of 110 (7%) experienced acute coronary syndrome. In the MRI pathway, 49 of 53 underwent stress cardiac MRI, 11 of 53 were admitted, 1 left against medical advice, 41 were discharged, and 2 had acute coronary syndrome. In the inpatient care pathway, 39 of 57 patients initially received stress testing, 54 of 57 were admitted, 3 left against medical advice, and 6 had acute coronary syndrome. At 30 days, no subjects in either group experienced acute coronary syndrome after discharge. The cardiac MRI group had a reduced median hospitalization cost (Hodges-Lehmann estimate $588; 95% confidence interval $336 to $811); 79% were managed without hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Compared with inpatient care, an observation unit strategy involving stress cardiac MRI reduced incident cost without any cases of missed acute coronary syndrome in patients with emergent chest pain.

A Multidisciplinary Self-Directed Learning Module Improves Knowledge of a Quality Improvement Instrument: The HEART Pathway.

We created and tested an educational intervention to support implementation of an institution wide QI project (the HEART Pathway) designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain. Although online learning modules have been shown effective in imparting knowledge regarding QI projects, it is unknown whether these modules are effective across specialties and healthcare professions. Participants, including nurses, advanced practice clinicians, house staff and attending physicians (N = 486), were enrolled into an online, self-directed learning course exploring the key concepts of the HEART Pathway. The module was completed by 97% of enrollees (469/486) and 90% passed on the first attempt (422/469). Out of 469 learners, 323 completed the pretest, learning module and posttest in the correct order. Mean test scores across learners improved significantly from 74% to 89% from the pretest to the posttest. Following the intervention, the HEART Pathway was used for 88% of patients presenting to our institution with acute chest pain. Our data demonstrate that this online, self-directed learning module can improve knowledge of the HEART Pathway across specialties-paving the way for more efficient and informed care for acute chest pain patients.

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).

Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. METHODS AND RESULTS: On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n=60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n=60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR=24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P=0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR=0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P=0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department-directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00869245.

Stress CMR imaging observation unit in the emergency department reduces 1-year medical care costs in patients with acute chest pain: a randomized study for comparison with inpatient care.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the direct cost of medical care and clinical events during the first year after patients with intermediate risk acute chest pain were randomized to stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) observation unit (OU) testing versus inpatient care. BACKGROUND: In a recent study, randomization to OU-CMR reduced median index hospitalization cost compared with the cost of inpatient care in patients presenting to the emergency department with intermediate risk acute chest pain. METHODS: Emergency department patients with intermediate risk chest pain were randomized to OU-CMR (OU care, cardiac markers, stress CMR) or inpatient care (admission, care per admitting provider). This analysis reports the direct cost of cardiac-related care and clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction, revascularization, cardiovascular death) during the first year of follow-up subsequent to discharge. Consistent with health economics literature, provider cost was calculated from work-related relative value units using the Medicare conversion factor; facility charges were converted to cost using departmental-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Linear models were used to compare cost accumulation among study groups. RESULTS: We included 109 randomized subjects in this analysis (52 OU-CMR, 57 inpatient care). The median age was 56 years; baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At 1 year, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72) with 1 patient in each group experiencing a cardiac event after discharge. First-year cardiac-related costs were significantly lower for participants randomized to OU-CMR than for participants receiving inpatient care (geometric mean = $3,101 vs. $4,742 including the index visit [p = 0.004] and $29 vs. $152 following discharge [p = 0.012]). During the year following randomization, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: An OU-CMR strategy reduces cardiac-related costs of medical care during the index visit and over the first year subsequent to discharge, without an observed increase in major cardiac events. (Cost Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging [MRI] Use in Emergency Department [ED] Patients With Chest Pain; NCT00678639).