Higher intensity of 72-h noninvasive cardiac test referral does not improve short-term outcomes among emergency department patients with chest pain.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether referral for cardiac noninvasive testing (NIT) following emergency department (ED) chest pain encounters improves short-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting with chest pain, without ST-elevation myocardial infarction or myocardial injury by serum troponin testing, between 2013 and 2019 to 21 EDs within an integrated health care system. We examined the association between NIT referral (within 72 h of the ED encounter) and a primary outcome of 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were 60-day MACE without coronary revascularization (MACE-CR) and 60-day all-cause mortality. To account for confounding by indication for NIT, we grouped patient encounters into ranked tertiles of NIT referral intensity based on the likelihood of 72-h NIT referral associated with the initially assigned emergency physician, relative to local peers and within discrete time periods. Associations between NIT referral-intensity tertile and outcomes were assessed using risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 210,948 eligible patient encounters, 72-h NIT referral frequency was 11.9%, 18.3%, and 25.9% in low, intermediate, and high NIT referral-intensity encounters, respectively. Compared with the low referral-intensity tertile, there was a higher risk of 60-day MACE within the high referral-intensity tertile (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.17) due to more coronary revascularizations without corresponding differences in MACE-CR or all-cause mortality. In analyses stratified by patients' estimated risk (HEART score; 50.5% lower risk, 38.7% moderate risk, 10.8% higher risk), the difference in 60-day MACE was primarily attributable to moderate-risk encounters (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.24), with no differences among either lower- (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.31) or higher- (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.14) risk encounters. CONCLUSION: Higher referral intensity for 72-h NIT was associated with higher risk of coronary revascularization but no difference in adverse events within 60 days. These findings further call into question the urgency of NIT among ED patients without objective evidence of myocardial injury.

Graded Coronary Risk Stratification for Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain: A Controlled Cohort Study.

Background Resource utilization among emergency department (ED) patients with possible coronary chest pain is highly variable. Methods and Results Controlled cohort study amongst 21 EDs of an integrated healthcare system examining the implementation of a graded coronary risk stratification algorithm (RISTRA-ACS [risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome]). Thirteen EDs had access to RISTRA-ACS within the electronic health record (RISTRA sites) beginning in month 24 of a 48-month study period (January 2016 to December 2019); the remaining 8 EDs served as contemporaneous controls. Study participants had a chief complaint of chest pain and serum troponin measurement in the ED. The primary outcome was index visit resource utilization (observation unit or hospital admission, or 7-day objective cardiac testing). Secondary outcomes were 30-day objective cardiac testing, 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 60-day MACE-CR (MACE excluding coronary revascularization). Difference-in-differences analyses controlled for secular trends with stratification by estimated risk and adjustment for risk factors, ED physician and facility. A total of 154 914 encounters were included. Relative to control sites, 30-day objective cardiac testing decreased at RISTRA sites among patients with low (≤2%) estimated 60-day MACE risk (-2.5%, 95% CI -3.7 to -1.2%, P<0.001) and increased among patients with non-low (>2%) estimated risk (+2.8%, 95% CI +0.6 to +4.9%, P=0.014), without significant overall change (-1.0%, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1%, P=0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in index visit resource utilization, 60-day MACE or 60-day MACE-CR. Conclusions Implementation of RISTRA-ACS was associated with better allocation of 30-day objective cardiac testing and no change in index visit resource utilization or 60-day MACE. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain.

Background Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as "rule-out" binary classification strategies, while others use graded-risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported. Methods and Results This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin-only strategies (fourth-generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA-ACS). The primary outcome was 60-day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60-day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03-0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low-risk thresholds. RISTRA-ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60-day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91-0.94, P<0.0001). Conclusions RISTRA-ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule-out approaches, while RISTRA-ACS was the best-performing graded-risk approach. RISTRA-ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Computed Tomography Use in Children With Minor Head Trauma Presenting to 21 Community Emergency Departments Within an Integrated Health-Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Decreasing unnecessary cranial computed tomography (CT) use in pediatric head trauma patients remains important for emergency departments (EDs) across the US. Our study evaluated CT use in children with minor blunt head trauma in 21 community EDs within an integrated health-care system. METHODS: We studied all children younger than 18 years old presenting to 21 community EDs between 2016 through 2018 with acute minor blunt head trauma, defined by an algorithm of ED chief complaints and diagnoses. We excluded patients with traumatic brain injuries diagnosed in the prior year, a CT within 24 hours prior to the ED visit, or an ED Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 14. RESULTS: Among 39,792 pediatric minor head trauma ED visits, the aggregate CT use proportion across all EDs was 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 12.6-13.3%; facility-level range, 5.4-21.6%]. The 7 facilities that had previously received a clinical decision support system intervention implementing the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network rules during 2013 through 2014 had an aggregate mean CT ordering rate of 11.2% (95% CI, 10.7-11.7%; facility-level range, 5.4-14.3%) compared to 14.1% (95% CI, 13.6-14.5%; facility-level range, 7.3-21.6%) for the nonintervention facilities. CONCLUSION: CT use for children with minor blunt head trauma in the community EDs of an integrated health-care system was low and stable across facilities from 2016 through 2018. This may be indicative of the safe stewardship of resources in the system, including the absence of financial or medicolegal incentives to scan very low-risk patients as well the availability of resources for close patient follow-up.

Automated Retrospective Calculation of the EDACS and HEART Scores in a Multicenter Prospective Cohort of Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary risk scores are commonly applied to emergency department patients with undifferentiated chest pain. Two prominent risk score-based protocols are the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) and the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin (HEART) pathway. Since prospective documentation of these risk determinations can be challenging to obtain, quality improvement projects could benefit from automated retrospective risk score classification methodologies. METHODS: EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway data elements were prospectively collected using a Web-based electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool over a 24-month period (2018-2019) among patients presenting with chest pain to 13 EDs within an integrated health system. Data elements were also extracted and processed electronically (retrospectively) from the electronic health record (EHR) for the same patients. The primary outcome was agreement between the prospective/eCDS and retrospective/EHR data sets on dichotomous risk protocol classification, as assessed by kappa statistics (ĸ). RESULTS: There were 12,110 eligible eCDS uses during the study period, of which 66 and 47% were low-risk encounters by EDACS-ADP and HEART pathway, respectively. Agreement on low-risk status was acceptable for EDACS-ADP (ĸ = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.75) and HEART pathway (ĸ = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.70) and for the continuous scores (interclass correlation coefficients = 0.87 and 0.84 for EDACS and HEART, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Automated retrospective determination of low risk status by either the EDACS-ADP or the HEART pathway provides acceptable agreement compared to prospective score calculations, providing a feasible risk adjustment option for use in large data set analyses.