Self-Administration of Aspirin After Chest Pain for the Prevention of Premature Cardiovascular Mortality in the United States: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin, an effective, low-cost pharmaceutical, can significantly reduce mortality if used promptly after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, many AMI survivors do not receive aspirin within a few hours of symptom onset. Our aim was to quantify the mortality benefit of self-administering aspirin at chest pain onset, considering the increased risk of bleeding and costs associated with widespread use. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a population simulation model to determine the impact of self-administering 325 mg aspirin within 4 hours of severe chest pain onset. We created a synthetic cohort of adults ≥ 40 years old experiencing severe chest pain using 2019 US population estimates, AMI incidence, and sensitivity/specificity of chest pain for AMI. The number of annual deaths delayed was estimated using evidence from a large, randomized trial. We also estimated the years of life saved (YOLS), costs, and cost per YOLS. Initiating aspirin within 4 hours of severe chest pain onset delayed 13 016 (95% CI, 11 643-14 574) deaths annually, after accounting for deaths due to bleeding (963; 926-1003). This translated to an estimated 166 309 YOLS (149391-185 505) at the cost of $643 235 (633 944-653 010) per year, leading to a cost-effectiveness ratio of $3.70 (3.32-4.12) per YOLS. CONCLUSIONS: For <$4 per YOLS, self-administration of aspirin within 4 hours of severe chest pain onset has the potential to save 13 000 lives per year in the US population. Benefits of reducing deaths post-AMI outweighed the risk of bleeding deaths from aspirin 10 times over.

Critical Assessment of the Management of Unstable Angina in a Specialized Cardiology Emergency Room. / Avaliação Crítica do Manejo da Angina Instável em Pronto-Socorro Terciário de Cardiologia.

BACKGROUND: The management of unstable angina (UA) presents a challenge due to its subjective diagnosis and limited representation in randomized clinical trials that inform current practices. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify key factors associated with the indication for invasive versus non-invasive stratification in this population and to evaluate factors associated with stratification test results. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients hospitalized with UA over a consecutive 20-month period. To assess factors associated with stratification strategies, patients were divided into invasive stratification (coronary angiography) and non-invasive stratification (other methods) groups. For the analysis of factors related to changes in stratification tests, patients were categorized into groups with or without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) or ischemia, as per the results of the requested tests. Comparisons between groups and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed, with statistical significance set at a 5% level. RESULTS: A total of 729 patients were included, with a median age of 63 years and a predominance of males (64.6%). Factors associated with invasive stratification included smoking (p = 0.001); type of chest pain (p < 0.001); "crescendo" pain (p = 0.006); TIMI score (p = 0.006); HEART score (p = 0.011). In multivariate analysis, current smokers (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.13-4.8), former smokers (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.39-3.53), and type A chest pain (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.93-6.66) were independently associated. Factors associated with obstructive CAD or ischemia included length of hospital stay (p < 0.001); male gender (p = 0.032); effort-induced pain (p = 0.037); Diamond-Forrester score (p = 0.026); TIMI score (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only chest pain (type B chest pain: OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.38-0.93, p = 0.026) and previous CAD (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01-2.0, p = 0.048) were independently associated. CONCLUSION: The type of chest pain plays a crucial role not only in the diagnosis of UA but also in determining the appropriate treatment. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating pain characteristics into prognostic scores endorsed by guidelines to optimize UA management.

FUNDAMENTO: O manejo da angina instável (AI) é um desafio devido ao seu diagnóstico subjetivo e à sua escassa representação em ensaios clínicos randomizados que determinem as práticas atuais. OBJETIVOS: O objetivo deste estudo é identificar os principais fatores associados à indicação de estratificação invasiva ou não nessa população e avaliar os fatores associados às alterações nos exames de estratificação. MÉTODOS: Coorte retrospectiva de pacientes internados por AI, em um período de 20 meses consecutivos. Para avaliar os fatores associados à estratégia de estratificação, os pacientes foram divididos em estratificação invasiva (cinecoronariografia) e não invasiva (demais métodos). Para análise de fatores relacionados às alterações nos exames de estratificação, os pacientes foram divididos em grupos com ou sem doença arterial coronariana (DAC) obstrutiva ou isquemia, conforme resultados dos exames solicitados. Foram realizadas comparações entre grupos e análise de regressão logística múltipla, com significância estatística definida em um nível de 5%. RESULTADOS: 729 pacientes foram incluídos, com mediana de idade de 63 anos e predomínio do sexo masculino (64,6%). Estiveram associados à estratificação invasiva: tabagismo (p = 0,001); tipo de dor torácica (p < 0,001); dor "em crescendo" (p = 0,006); escore TIMI (p = 0,006); escore HEART (p = 0,011). Na análise multivariada, tabagistas (OR 2,23, IC 95% 1,13-4,8), ex-tabagistas (OR 2,19, IC 1,39-3,53) e dor torácica tipo A (OR 3,39, IC 95% 1,93-6,66) estiveram associados de forma independente. Estiveram associados à DAC obstrutiva ou isquemia: tempo de internação hospitalar (p < 0,001); sexo masculino (p = 0,032); dor desencadeada por esforço (p = 0,037); Diamond-Forrester (p = 0,026); escore TIMI (p = 0,001). Na análise multivariada, apenas dor torácica (dor torácica tipo B: OR 0,6, IC 95% 0,38-0,93, p = 0,026) e DAC prévia (OR 1,42, IC 95% 1,01-2,0, p = 0,048) estiveram associadas de maneira independente. CONCLUSÕES: O tipo de dor torácica desempenha um papel crucial não apenas no diagnóstico da AI, mas também na definição do tratamento adequado. Nossos resultados destacam a importância de incorporar características da dor aos escores prognósticos endossados pelas diretrizes, para otimização do manejo da AI.

Assessment and Application of the Hear Score in Remote Emergency Medicine Outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Background and Objectives. In emergency departments, chest pain is a common concern, highlighting the critical importance of distinguishing between acute coronary syndrome and other potential causes. Our research aimed to introduce and implement the HEAR score, specifically, in remote emergency outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materials and Methods. This follow-up study conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort consisting of patients who were admitted to the remote emergency medicine outposts in Canton Sarajevo and Zenica from 1 November to 31 December 2023. Results. This study comprised 103 (12.9%) patients with low-risk HEAR scores and 338 (83.8%) with high-risk HEAR scores, primarily female (221, 56.9%), with a mean age of 63.5 ± 11.2). Patients with low-risk HEAR scores were significantly younger (50.5 ± 15.6 vs. 65.9 ± 12.1), had fewer smokers (p < 0.05), and exhibited a lower incidence of cardiovascular risk factors compared to those with high-risk HEAR scores. Low-risk HEAR score for prediction of AMI had a sensitivity of 97.1% (95% CI 89.9-99.6%); specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 19.82% (95% CI 18.67-21.03%), and NPV of 98.08% (95% CI 92.80-99.51%). Within 30 days of the admission to the emergency department outpost, out of all 441 patients, 100 (22.7%) were diagnosed with MACE, with AMI 69 (15.6%), 3 deaths (0.7%), 6 (1.4%) had a CABG, and 22 (4.9%) underwent PCI. A low-risk HEAR score had a sensitivity of 97.0% (95% CI 91.7-99.4%) and specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 25.5% (95% CI 25.59-28.37%); NPV of 97.14% (95% CI 91.68-99.06%) for 30-day MACE. Conclusions. In conclusion, the outcomes of this study align with existing research, underscoring the effectiveness of the HEAR score in risk stratification for patients with chest pain. In practical terms, the implementation of the HEAR score in clinical decision-making processes holds significant promise.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of the HEART Score Calculated by Ambulance Nurses Versus Emergency Physicians.

Chest pain is a common complaint for consultation of emergency medical services worldwide. Currently, ambulance nurses (AN) base their decision to transport a patient to the hospital on their own professional experience. The HEART score could improve prehospital risk stratification and patient treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the HEART score between AN and emergency physicians (EP). A retrospective analysis on data of 569 patients 18 years and older included in two prehospital HEART score studies. The endpoints are interrater reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC]) and predictive accuracy for major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of the HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. Predictive accuracy is sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV) and negative predicted value (NPV). Interrater reliability was good for total HEART score (ICC 0.78; 95% CI 0.75-0.81). However, focusing on the decision to transport a patient, the ICC dropped to 0.62 (95% CI 0.62-0.70). History and Risk factors caused the most variability. Predictive accuracy of HEART differed between AN and EP. The HEART score calculated by AN was sensitivity 91%, specificity 38%, PPV 26%, and NPV 95%. The HEART score calculated by EP was sensitivity 98%, specificity 32%, PPV -26%, and NPV 99%. With a cut-off value of 0-2 for a low HEART score, predictive accuracy significantly improved for the HEART score calculated by AN: sensitivity 98%, specificity 18%, PPV 22%, and NPV 98%. Our study shows a moderate interrater reliability and lower predictive accuracy of a HEART score calculated by AN versus EP. AN underestimate the risk of patients with acute chest pain, with the largest discrepancies in the elements History and Risk factors. Reconsidering the cut-off values of the low-risk HEART category, as well as a carefully developed training program, will possibly lead to a higher interrater reliability of the HEART score and higher predictive accuracy used by AN.

FFRct use for acute chest pain triage in the emergency department: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: To model and assess the cost-effectiveness of CT-based fractional flow reserve (FFRct) for a population of low to intermediate risk patients for coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a decision tree model with a 1 year time horizon and from a health care perspective, two diagnostic pathways using FFRct are compared to current clinical routine combining coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with an exercise test. Model data are drawn from the literature and nationally reported data. Outcomes are assessed as the number of avoided invasive coronary angiographies (ICAs) showing no obstructive CAD and quality of life (QoL) in a theoretical cohort of 1000 patients. Sensitivity analyses are performed to test the robustness of the results. Determining FFRct when CCTA is inconclusive is a cost-effective and dominant strategy with a potential saving of 198€/patient, 154 avoided unnecessary ICA showing no obstructive CAD (uICA)/1000 patients and an average improvement in QoL of 0.008 QALY/patient. With an additional 574€/patient, 8 avoided uICA/1000 patients and an improvement in QoL of 0.001 QALY/patient, a strategy where FFRct is always performed is cost-effective only when considering high cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: For patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain and a low to intermediate pre-test probability of CAD, a diagnostic strategy where FFRct is determined after an inconclusive CCTA is cost-effective. Clinical trials investigating both sensitivity and specificity of FFRct, as well as QoL associated with the use of this technology in this setting are warranted.

Evaluation of Clinical Applicability of Coronary Artery Calcium Assessment on Non-Gated Chest Computed Tomography, Compared With the Classic Agatston Score on Cardiac Computed Tomography.

Given current pretest probability (PTP) estimations tend to overestimate patients' risk for obstructive coronary artery disease, evaluation of patients' coronary artery calcium (CAC) is more precise. The value of CAC assessment with the Agatston score on cardiac computed tomography (CT) for risk estimation has been well indicated in patients with stable chest pain. CAC can be equally well assessed on routine non-gated chest CT, which is often available. This study aims to determine the clinical applicability of CAC assessment on non-gated CT in patients with stable chest pain compared with the classic Agatston score on gated CT. Consecutive patients referred for evaluation of the Agatston score, who had a previously performed non-gated chest CT for evaluation of noncardiac diseases, were included. CAC on non-gated CT was ordinally scored. Subsequently, patients were stratified according to CAC severity and PTP. The agreement and correlation between the classic Agatston score and CAC on non-gated CT were evaluated. The discriminative power for risk reclassification of both CAC assessment methods was assessed. Invasive coronary angiography was used as the gold standard, when available. A total of 140 patients aged between 30 and 88 years were included. The agreement between ordinally scored CAC and the Agatston score was excellent (κ = 0.82) and the correlation strong (r = 0.94). Most patients (80%) with an intermediate PTP had no or mild CAC on non-gated CT. They were reclassified at low risk with 100% accuracy compared with invasive coronary angiography. Similarly, 86% of patients had an Agatston score <300. These patients were reclassified with 98% accuracy. In patients with high PTP, the accuracy remained substantial and comparable, 94% and 89%, respectively. In conclusion, we believe this is the first study to assess the clinical applicability of CAC on non-gated CT in patients with stable chest pain, compared with the classic Agatston score. The agreement between methods was excellent and the correlation strong. Furthermore, CAC assessment on non-gated CT could reclassify patients' risk for obstructive coronary artery disease as accurately as could the classic Agatston score.

A systematic review of the applicability of emergency department assessment of chest pain score-accelerated diagnostic protocol for risk stratification of patients with chest pain.

The emergency department assessment of chest pain score-accelerated diagnostic protocol (EDACS-ADP) are commonly used for risk stratification in undifferentiated patients with acute chest pain. This systematic review aimed to investigate EDACS-ADP for risk stratification of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for related studies without restrictions on the publication year. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and Stata 16.0 was used to determine the combined sensitivity, specificity, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR), and negative DLR. Twelve studies comprising 14 290 patients were identified. Of these, 7537 (52.74%) patients were considered low risk, and 67 (0.89%) had major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death within 30 days of the patients' ED presentation. EDACS-ADP showed a combined sensitivity of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-0.99); specificity, 0.58 (0.53-0.63); positive DLR, 2.34 (2.08-2.63); negative DLR, 0.04 (0.02-0.09); diagnostic odds ratio, 53.11 (26.45-106.63); and summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, 0.83 (0.79-0.86). Despite the large statistical heterogeneity of the results, EDACS-ADP identified a considerable number of low-risk patients for early discharge, with a specificity >50% and an incidence of MACE within 30-days of patients' ED presentation <1%. Thus, it is a useful tool with a potential for clinical application.

Diagnostic and Cost Efficiency of the 0-h/1-h Rule-out and Rule-in Algorithm for Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the economic impact of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline recommendation of using the 0-h/1-h rule-out and rule-in algorithm with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays (0/1-h algorithm) to triage patients presenting with chest pain.Methods and Results: This post hoc cost-effectiveness evaluation (DROP-ACS; UMIN000030668) used deidentified electronic medical records from health insurance claims from 2 diagnostic centers in Japan. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with 472 patients with care provided following the 0/1-h algorithm (Hospital A) and 427 patients following point-of-care testing (Hospital B). The clinical outcome of interest was all-cause mortality or subsequent myocardial infarction within 30 days of the index presentation. The sensitivity and specificity for the clinical outcome were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.1-100%) and 95.0% (95% CI 94.3-95.0%), respectively, in Hospital A and 92.9% (95% CI 69.6-98.7%) and 89.8% (95% CI 89.0-90.0%), respectively, in Hospital B. If the diagnostic accuracy of the 0/1-h algorithm was implemented in Hospital B, it is expected that the number of urgent (<24-h) coronary angiograms would decrease by 50%. Incorporating this assumption, implementing the 0/1-h algorithm could potentially reduce medical costs by JPY4,033,874 (95% CI JPY3,440,346-4,627,402) in Hospital B (JPY9,447 per patient; 95% CI JPY 8,057-10,837 per patient). CONCLUSIONS: The ESC 0/1-h algorithm was efficient for risk stratification and for reducing medical costs.

Focused Chest Pain Assessment for Early Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Development of a Cardiovascular Digital Health Intervention.

Background: Chest pain misinterpretation is the leading cause of pre-hospital delay in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aims to identify and differentiate the chest pain characteristics associated with ACS. Methods: A total of 164 patients with a primary complaint of chest pain in the ER were included in the study. ACS diagnosis was made by a cardiologist based on the WHO criteria, and the patients were interviewed 48 hours after their admission. Furthermore, every question was analysed using the crosstabs method to obtain the odds ratio, and logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the model of focused questions on chest pain assessment. Results: Among the samples, 50% of them had an ACS. Four questions fitted the final model of ACS chest pain focused questions: 1) Did the chest pain occur at the left/middle chest? 2) Did the chest pain radiate to the back? 3) Was the chest pain provoked by activity and relieved by rest? 4) Was the chest pain provoked by food ingestion, positional changes, or breathing? This model has 92.7% sensitivity, 84.1% specificity, 85% positive predictive value (PPV), 86% negative predictive value (NPV), and 86% accuracy. After adjusting for gender and diabetes mellitus (DM), the final model has a significant increase in Nagelkerke R-square to 0.737 and Hosmer and Lemeshow test statistic of 0.639. Conclusion: Focused questions on 1) left/middle chest pain, 2) retrosternal chest pain, 3) exertional chest pain that is relieved by rest, and 4) chest pain from food ingestion, positional changes, or breathing triggering can be used to rule out ACS with high predictive value. The findings from this study can be used in health promotion materials and campaigns to improve public awareness regarding ACS symptoms. Additionally, digital health interventions to triage patients' suffering with chest pain can also be developed.

Effect of a Senior Cardiology Nursing Role on Streamlining Assessment of Emergency Cardiology Presentations During COVID-19: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Cardiology Coordinator (ECC) was a senior nursing role implemented from 14 April 2020 to 15 September 2020 at the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service in South-East Queensland, Australia to streamline and expedite assessment of patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspected cardiac problems. ECC implementation occurred in the context of the emergence of COVID-19. Evaluation of the impact of the ECC role focussed primarily on the time interval from triage to cardiology consult (TTCC). METHODS: ED and Cardiology Department data were extracted from electronic medical records for the period 2 September 2019 to 1 March 2021. The TTCC for each presenting problem (chest pain, palpitations, shortness of breath, altered level of consciousness) was compared between patients seen by the ECC and those not seen on the days the ECC worked. The effect of COVID-19 on TTCC was assessed by an interrupted time series analysis. Data recorded by the ECC included patients seen and interventions provided. RESULTS: The ECC saw 378 patients. Most presented with chest pain (269/378, 71.2%). The ECC determined that 68.8% (260/378) required a cardiac assessment. Following COVID-19 the median weekly TTCC increased by 0.029 hours (1.74 min) each week on average relative to that beforehand (p=0.008). For patients seen by the ECC the median TTCC was 2.07 hours (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.44, 3.16) compared to 2.58 hours (IQR: 1.73, 3.80; p=0.007) for patients not seen by the ECC. Chest pain (ECC: 1.94 hours; no ECC: 2.41 hours; p=0.06) and non-obvious cardiac presenting problems (ECC: 1.77 hours; no ECC 3.05 hours; p=0.004) displayed the largest reductions in TTCC when the ECC was involved. Presentations with palpitations, respiratory distress and altered level of consciousness had similar TTCCs. CONCLUSION: The ECC role resulted in an overall decrease in TTCC despite the role coinciding with the emergence of COVID-19. In order to clarify the optimal strategy for the ECC role, further analyses involving patient risk factors and presenting problems along with a health economic evaluation of this model of care and the effect on patient outcomes will be required.

Healthcare cost burden of acute chest pain presentations.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the direct healthcare cost burden of acute chest pain attendances presenting to ambulance in Victoria, Australia, and to identify key cost drivers especially among low-risk patients. METHODS: State-wide population-based cohort study of consecutive adult patients attended by ambulance for acute chest pain with individual linkage to emergency and hospital admission data in Victoria, Australia (1 January 2015-30 June 2019). Direct healthcare costs, adjusted for inflation to 2020-2021 ($A), were estimated for each component of care using a casemix funding method. RESULTS: From 241 627 ambulance attendances for chest pain during the study period, mean chest pain episode cost was $6284, and total annual costs were estimated at $337.4 million ($68 per capita per annum). Total annual costs increased across the period ($310.5 million in 2015 vs $384.5 million in 2019), while mean episode costs remained stable. Cardiovascular conditions (25% of presentations) were the most expensive (mean $11 523, total annual $148.7 million), while a non-specific pain diagnosis (49% of presentations) was the least expensive (mean $3836, total annual $93.4 million). Patients classified as being at low risk of myocardial infarction, mortality or hospital admission (Early Chest pain Admission, Myocardial infarction, and Mortality (ECAMM) score) represented 31%-57% of the cohort, with total annual costs estimated at $60.6 million-$135.4 million, depending on the score cut-off used. CONCLUSIONS: Total annual costs for acute chest pain presentations are increasing, and a significant proportion of the cost burden relates to low-risk patients and non-specific pain. These data highlight the need to improve the cost-efficiency of chest pain care pathways.

Clinical and cost implications of deferred testing in low-risk patients with stable chest pain: a simulation using the PROMISE trial.

Current guidelines recommend a deferred testing approach in low-risk patients presenting with stable chest pain. After simulating a deferred testing approach using the PROMISE Minimal Risk Score to identify 915 minimal risk participants with cost data from the PROMISE trial, a deferred testing strategy was associated with an adjusted cost savings of -$748.74 (95% CI: -1646.97, 158.06) per participant and 74.6% of samples had better clinical outcomes and lower mean cost. This supports the current guideline recommended deferred testing approach in low-risk patients with stable chest pain.

Comparison of risk assessment strategies incorporating coronary artery calcium score with estimation of pretest probability to defer cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain.

BACKGROUND: The risk assessment of patients with stable chest pain (SCP) to defer further cardiovascular testing is crucial, but the most appropriate risk assessment strategy remains unknown. We aimed to compare current strategies to identify low risk SCP patients. METHODS: 5289 symptomatic patients who had undergone coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and coronary computed tomographic angiography scan were identified and followed. Pretest probability (PTP) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for every patient was estimated according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC)-PTP model and CACS-weighted clinical likelihood (CACS-CL) model, respectively. Based on the 2019 ESC guideline-determined risk assessment strategy (ESC strategy) and CACS-CL model-based risk assessment strategy (CACS-CL strategy), all patients were divided into low and high risk group, respectively. Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) was used. RESULTS: CACS-CL model provided more robust estimation of PTP than ESC-PTP model did, with a larger AUC (0.838 versus 0.735, p < 0.0001), positive IDI (9%, p < 0.0001) and less discrepancy between observed and predicted probabilities. As a result, compared to ESC strategy which only applied CACS-CL model to patients with borderline ESC-PTP, CACS-CL strategy incorporating CACS with estimation of PTP to entire SCP patients indicated a positive NRI (19%, p < 0.0001) and a stronger association to major adverse cardiovascular events, with hazard ratios: 3.97 (95% confidence intervals: 2.75-5.72) versus 5.11 (95% confidence intervals: 3.40-7.69). CONCLUSION: The additional use of CACS for all SCP patients in CACS-CL strategy improved the risk assessment of SCP patients to identify individuals at low risk.

Chest Pain Management Using Prehospital Point-of-Care Troponin and Paramedic Risk Assessment.

Importance: Prehospital point-of-care troponin testing and paramedic risk stratification might improve the efficiency of chest pain care pathways compared with existing processes with equivalent health outcomes, but the association with health care costs is unclear. Objective: To analyze whether prehospital point-of-care troponin testing and paramedic risk stratification could result in cost savings compared with existing chest pain care pathways. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of adults with acute chest pain without ST-segment elevation, cost-minimization analysis was used to assess linked ambulance, emergency, and hospital attendance in the state of Victoria, Australia, between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Interventions: Paramedic risk stratification and point-of-care troponin testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was estimated mean annualized statewide costs for acute chest pain. Between May 17 and June 25, 2022, decision tree models were developed to estimate costs under 3 pathways: (1) existing care, (2) paramedic risk stratification and point-of-care troponin testing without prehospital discharge, or (3) prehospital discharge and referral to a virtual emergency department (ED) for low-risk patients. Probabilities for the prehospital pathways were derived from a review of the literature. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 50 000 Monte Carlo iterations was used to estimate mean costs and cost differences among pathways. Results: A total of 188 551 patients attended by ambulance for chest pain (mean [SD] age, 61.9 [18.3] years; 50.5% female; 49.5% male; Indigenous Australian, 2.0%) were included in the model. Estimated annualized infrastructure and staffing costs for the point-of-care troponin pathways, assuming a 5-year device life span, was $2.27 million for the pathway without prehospital discharge and $4.60 million for the pathway with prehospital discharge (incorporating virtual ED costs). In the decision tree model, total annual cost using prehospital point-of-care troponin and paramedic risk stratification was lower compared with existing care both without prehospital discharge (cost savings, $6.45 million; 95% uncertainty interval [UI], $0.59-$16.52 million; lower in 94.1% of iterations) and with prehospital discharge (cost savings, $42.84 million; 95% UI, $19.35-$72.26 million; lower in 100% of iterations). Conclusions and Relevance: Prehospital point-of-care troponin and paramedic risk stratification for patients with acute chest pain could result in substantial cost savings. These findings should be considered by policy makers in decisions surrounding the potential utility of prehospital chest pain risk stratification and point-of-care troponin models provided that safety is confirmed in prospective studies.

The yield of 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiography in the assessment of symptomatic school-age children.

INTRODUCTION: Lightheadedness, syncope, dyspnea, chest pain, palpitation, loss of consciousness (LOC) or malaise are a frequent reason for consultation in school-age children (SAC). The yield of holter monitoring (HM) in the investigation of these symptoms in SAC is still controversial given the scarce studies. AIM: To determine the prevalence of baseline ECG abnormalities and those detected in HM in SAC, and to assess the predictive factors of abnormal HM test. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study in which we had included all the consecutive SAC (6 to 12 years) presenting: syncope or lightheadedness or palpitation, dyspnea, or chest pain, malaise, LOC and referred to our department for HM. RESULTS: We included 366 children. Mean age was 9.7 ± 1.88 years. The major symptoms experienced by the patients were: palpitation (50.7%), chest pain (16.9%), lightheadedness (11.9%), syncope (6.9%), LOC (5.3%), ECG was abnormal in 8.7%. The two most common baseline ECG abnormalities were premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) (1.8%) and right bundle branch block (1.6%). HM was positive in 101 (26.6%) patients. The most common abnormalities in HM were vagal hypertonia in 61 patients (16.1%), PVCs in 29 patients (7.7%), Malignant abnormalities were encountered in 16 patients (13.9%) whereas benign abnormalities in 99 patients (86.1%). In the multivariate analysis: Age≥10 years, mean heart rate <94 beats per minute, the presence of syncope, LOC, malaise and the presence of PVCs in baseline ECG were identified as independent risk factors of abnormal holter. CONCLUSION: HM has an important diagnostic value in symptomatic SAC. It allows the identification of benign as well as malignant arrhythmias, which require urgent management.

Cost-effectiveness of a rule-out algorithm of acute myocardial infarction in low-risk patients: emergency primary care versus hospital setting.

AIMS: Hospital admissions of patients with chest pain considered as low risk for acute coronary syndrome contribute to increased costs and crowding in the emergency departments. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of assessing these patients in a primary care emergency setting, using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h algorithm for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, compared to routine hospital management. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. For the primary care estimates, costs and health care expenditure from the observational OUT-ACS (One-hoUr Troponin in a low-prevalence population of Acute Coronary Syndrome) study were compared with anonymous extracted administrative data on low-risk patients at a large general hospital in Norway. Patients discharged home after the hs-cTnT assessment were defined as low risk in the primary care cohort. In the hospital setting, the low-risk group comprised patients discharged with a non-specific chest pain diagnosis (ICD-10 codes R07.4 and Z03.5). Loss of health related to a potential increase in acute myocardial infarctions the following 30-days was estimated. The primary outcome measure was the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of applying the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in primary care. The secondary outcomes were health care costs and length of stay in the two settings. RESULTS: Differences in costs comprise personnel and laboratory costs of applying the algorithm at primary care level (€192) and expenses related to ambulance transports and complete hospital costs for low-risk patients admitted to hospital (€1986). Additional diagnostic procedures were performed in 31.9% (181/567) of the low-risk hospital cohort. The estimated reduction in health care cost when using the 0/1-h algorithm outside of hospital was €1794 per low-risk patient, with a mean decrease in length of stay of 18.9 h. These numbers result in an average per-person QALY gain of 0.0005. Increased QALY and decreased costs indicate that the primary care approach is clearly cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Using the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in low-risk patients in emergency primary care appears to be cost-effective compared to standard hospital management, with an extensive reduction in costs and length of stay per patient.

Early risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS; a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Chest pain is among the most common reasons for Emergency Department (ED) presentation, while most patients should be considered low risk for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Management of these patients places a significant burden on our health care system. Various risk scores have been developed to facilitate the triage of patients with chest pain. However, it remains unclear which score performs best in identifying low risk patients, in various settings. The aim of this study was to determine which risk score performs best in ruling out non-ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Data was collected from all patients >18 years presenting to the ED between 01 and 01-2019 and 01-07-2019, if they were suspected of NSTE-ACS. Primary endpoint was NSTE-ACS during presentation to the ED or hospitalization, according to the 2020 ESC guidelines. In a secondary analysis we determined the number low-risk patients, at set safety levels of 95% and 98%. RESULTS: A total of 536 patients were included, 192 (35.9%) were admitted to the hospital and NSTE-ACS occurred in 134 of 536 patients (25.0%). When areas under the curve (AUC) were compared, pre-HEART (0.869; CI 0.835-0.903), T-MACS (0.862; CI 0.825-0.898) and HEART (0.850; CI 0.815-0.885) performed best. At a safety level of 98%, the HEART score was the best performing risk score and identified 28.9% of patients as low risk, and missed 0 cases of NSTE-ACS. Followed by the pre-HEART score, which identified 18.3% of all patients as low risk, and missed 0% of NSTE-ACS. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed pre-HEART score is both practical and has accurate diagnostic properties, closely followed by the HEART score, and T-MACS. New pre-hospital risk scores are promising and much needed. Future studies should focus on the usage of pre-hospital scores for triage of patients with chest pain, in order to reduce the burden on emergency health care.

Do racial disparities exist at various time points during an emergency department visit for chest pain.

INTRODUCTION: It is well documented that disparities in patient care based on race and ethnicity are prevalent in the emergency medical care setting. In most cases these evaluations are patient focused and outcome based. The timeliness of patient treatment in the emergency department (ED) is correlated with patient outcomes. In this study, we sought to evaluate whether the timeliness of care for patients with chest pain across stages of care was impacted by patient race. METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of ED throughput times including adults who presented to one of seventeen EDs in a large healthcare system from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 and met criteria for inclusion. The effect of race on different intervals of care were assessed. Generalized Linear Models were used to estimate the effect of race on different intervals of care while controlling for Charlson Comorbidity index, age, gender, insurance, ED facility type and emergency severity index acuity level. RESULTS: A total of 28,705 patients were included, with a mean age of 54 ± 18 years. The majority of patients were White (63%), female (56%) and had Medicare or Medicaid (56%). Black patients experienced significantly increased wait times for resident physician examination, advanced practice provider examination, attending physician examination, and ED disposition. There was no difference in time to triage between Black patients and White patients. CONCLUSION: Black patients have longer wait times for resident physician evaluation, advanced practice provider evaluation, attending physician evaluation, and ED disposition when presenting to the ED with chest pain.

A Care Management Intervention for Noncardiac Chest Pain: Treatment Development and Feasibility Assessment.

ABSTRACT.Objective: Noncardiac chest pain is common and can cause distress, impair quality of life, and lead to recurrent evaluation. It is often multifactorial in etiology and influenced by psychological factors. The objective of this study was to describe the development, implementation, and preliminary feasibility of an 8-week multicomponent care management intervention.Methods: Participants with noncardiac chest pain were recruited from primary care clinics, ambulatory cardiac stress testing, and the emergency department (ED) at an urban academic hospital from March 2019 to November 2019. The care management team consisted of a nurse, cardiologist, and psychiatrist. Following a 1-time consultation visit with the cardiologist and nurse, evaluation and treatment recommendations were conveyed to the participant's primary care physician. The nurse completed 8 weekly phone calls with the participant to provide support, introduce therapeutic principles, and assist with care coordination under the supervision of a psychiatrist. Intervention feasibility was assessed on 7 domains. To examine preliminary efficacy, the number of ED visits was recorded, and participants completed pre-post measures of psychological health and health-related quality of life and Likert scales of chest pain symptom severity, frequency, and impact.Results: The intervention was developed and implemented in 3 patients who completed 100% of the consultation visits and a mean of 95.8% of study phone calls. There were no adverse events or ED visits. Mean scores for chest pain severity, chest pain frequency, chest pain impact, depression, anxiety, and somatization all improved. No other trends were observed.Conclusions: The findings suggest that a care management intervention may be feasible with potential to improve chest pain symptoms and psychological outcomes. A larger, randomized trial is needed to explore the efficacy of this intervention.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04904198.