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.

Subcutaneous emphysema in the lower extremities-always an emergency? Complications from minimally invasive surgery-a case report.

BACKGROUND: Lower-extremity subcutaneous emphysema is an unusual presentation in the emergency department, and it is often associated with gas-forming bacterial infections that confer significant morbidity and mortality. Because the presence of subcutaneous emphysema in an extremity can be alarming, physicians often pursue aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to identify and treat the underlying cause. In some cases, however, subcutaneous emphysema does not represent a life-threatening medical condition. The source of the subcutaneous air may not always be immediately recognized and can lead to either over- or under-utilization of resources to direct patient care. CASE REPORT: We describe a case of bilateral lower-extremity subcutaneous emphysema after recent robotic surgery. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: As the role of minimally invasive surgery and the push for shorter hospitalizations continue to rise, we are likely to see an increase in patients with complications from such procedures in the emergency department setting. Familiarity with the potential complications of these procedures is essential to differentiating between life-threatening and non-life-threatening conditions.

Comparison of an automated algorithm to expert physician interpretation of 80-lead body surface mapping in the evaluation of acute myocardial ischemia and infarction in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: results from the Optimal Cardiovascular Diagnostic Evaluation Enabling Faster Treatment of Myocardial Infarction trial.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Eighty-lead (80 L) body surface map (BSM) technology provides electrocardiogram data for the clinician to interpret. A BSM device also offers an automated interpretation. Little information is available about the performance of automated algorithm interpretation in comparison to human interpretation of the 80 L BSM. METHODS: Interpretations of BSMs by automated algorithm and a core laboratory of physician readers from The Optimal Cardiovascular Diagnostic Evaluation Enabling Faster Treatment of Myocardial Infarction trial were compared. The κ statistic and its 95% confidence interval for concordance were calculated. The effect of BSM quality on concordance was also analyzed. RESULTS: 3405 maps for 1601 subjects were reviewed by the core laboratory and automated algorithm. There was a combined concordance rate of 87.3% (κ = 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.52). A decrease in signal quality was associated with a decrease in concordance between human and automated algorithm interpretation (κ = 0.52 for good quality vs κ = 0.30 for poor quality). CONCLUSION: A moderate degree of concordance was noted between physician and automated algorithm interpretation of 80 L BSMs. Signal quality of 80 L electrocardiographic BSM directly affected concordance.

Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors in the emergency department for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: principles and practices.

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although the benefit of platelet inhibition by glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is well established, emergency physicians and cardiologists have different perspectives regarding their optimum administration, especially upstream before PCI. In this article, two emergency physicians and two cardiologists analyze data and discuss relevant issues, including the ischemic benefits vs. the risk of bleeding associated with GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors in appropriate patients, for example, those with an elevated troponin level or who undergo revascularization. The emergency physicians support early identification of high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients and early administration of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors, which are linked to improved patient outcomes. The cardiologists emphasize risk stratification to identify patients in whom the expected reduction in ischemic complications outweighs the risk of increased bleeding with these agents. GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors should be considered in patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) in whom PCI is planned, especially those with high-risk features or elevated serum troponin levels. It is reasonable to start this treatment upstream of intervention, pending further studies investigating the optimal timing of initiation of therapy in appropriate patients.

Intern Passport: Orienting New Travelers to the Emergency Department.

The objective of the Intern Passport (IP) curriculum was to implement a structured orientation for incoming interns that effectively defined and distinguished various personnel and assets within the emergency department (ED). The method of training was an on-the-job orientation that required interns to obtain "stamps" (signatures) on their passports during visits to eight "countries" (specialists) within the ED. Topics covered during the visit included introductions, tasks and capabilities, expectations, and pearls and pitfalls. Interns obtained stamps after spending 30-minute orientation visits with each country during the first four-week rotation of internship. The ED countries visited were Adult Nursing, Pediatric Nursing, Orthopedics Technician, Respiratory Therapy, Pharmacy, Psychiatry, Observation, and Radiology. Effectiveness was assessed by participant completion of an optional anonymous retrospective survey. The IP was a beneficial addition to our intern orientation curriculum. It effectively defined and distinguished various personnel and assets within the ED.

A Narrative Review of the Evidence Supporting Factors Used by Residency Program Directors to Select Applicants for Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Residency applicants feel increasing pressure to maximize their chances of successfully matching into the program of their choice, and are applying to more programs than ever before. OBJECTIVE: In this narrative review, we examined the most common and highly rated factors used to select applicants for interviews. We also examined the literature surrounding those factors to illuminate the advantages and disadvantages of using them as differentiating elements in interviewee selection. METHODS: Using the 2018 NRMP Program Director Survey as a framework, we examined the last 10 years of literature to ascertain how residency directors are using these common factors to grant residency interviews, and whether these factors are predictive of success in residency. RESULTS: Residency program directors identified 12 factors that contribute substantially to the decision to invite applicants for interviews. Although United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 is often used as a comparative factor, most studies do not demonstrate its predictive value for resident performance, except in the case of test failure. We also found that structured letters of recommendation from within a specialty carry increased benefit when compared with generic letters. Failing USMLE Step 1 or 2 and unprofessional behavior predicted lower performance in residency. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the evidence basis for the factors most commonly used by residency directors is decidedly mixed in terms of predicting success in residency and beyond. Given these limitations, program directors should be skeptical of making summative decisions based on any one factor.

The HEART Pathway Randomized Controlled Trial One-year Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the impact of the HEART Pathway on health care utilization and safety outcomes at 1 year in patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: Adult emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain (N = 282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, ED providers used the HEART score and troponin measures (0 and 3 hours) to risk stratify patients. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE-cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or coronary revascularization), objective testing (stress testing or coronary angiography), and cardiac hospitalizations and ED visits were assessed at 1 year. Randomization arm outcomes were compared using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were enrolled, with 141 randomized to each arm. MACE at 1 year occurred in 10.6% (30/282): 9.9% in the HEART Pathway arm (14/141; 10 MIs, four revascularizations without MI) versus 11.3% in usual care (16/141; one cardiac death, 13 MIs, two revascularizations without MI; p = 0.85). Among low-risk HEART Pathway patients, 0% (0/66) had MACE, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% confidence interval = 93%-100%). Objective testing through 1 year occurred in 63.1% (89/141) of HEART Pathway patients compared to 71.6% (101/141) in usual care (p = 0.16). Nonindex cardiac-related hospitalizations and ED visits occurred in 14.9% (21/141) and 21.3% (30/141) of patients in the HEART Pathway versus 10.6% (15/141) and 16.3% (23/141) in usual care (p = 0.37, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The HEART Pathway had a 100% NPV for 1-year safety outcomes (MACE) without increasing downstream hospitalizations or ED visits. Reduction in 1-year objective testing was not significant.

Validation of the No Objective Testing Rule and Comparison to the HEART Pathway.

BACKGROUND: The no objective testing rule (NOTR) is a decision aid designed to safely identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain who do not require objective testing for coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to validate the NOTR in a cohort of U.S. ED patients with acute chest pain and compare its performance to the HEART Pathway. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 282 participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway randomized controlled trial was conducted. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by the NOTR. Sensitivity for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days was calculated in the entire study population. NOTR and HEART Pathways were compared among patients randomized to the HEART Pathway in the parent trial using McNemar's test and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 22/282 (7.8%) participants, including no deaths, 16/282 (5.6%) with myocardial infarction (MI), and 6/282 (2.1%) with coronary revascularization without MI. NOTR was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 84.6%-100%) sensitive for MACE and identified 78/282 patients (27.7%, 95% = CI 22.5-33.3%) as low risk. In the HEART Pathway arm (n = 141), both NOTR and HEART Pathway identified all patients with MACE as at risk. Compared to NOTR, the HEART Pathway was able to correctly reclassify 27 patients without MACE as low risk, yielding a NRI of 20.8% (95% CI = 11.3%-30.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Within a U.S. cohort of ED patients with chest pain, the NOTR and HEART Pathway were 100% sensitive for MACE at 30 days. However, the HEART Pathway identified more patients suitable for early discharge than the NOTR.

Use of the HEART Pathway with high sensitivity cardiac troponins: A secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The HEART Pathway combines a decision aid and serial contemporary cardiac troponin I (cTnI) measures to achieve >99% sensitivity for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30days and early discharge rates >20%. However, the impact of integrating high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) measures into the HEART Pathway has yet to be determined. In this analysis we compare test characteristics of the HEART Pathway using hs-cTnI, hs-cTnT, or cTnI. DESIGN & METHODS: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway RCT was conducted. Each patient was risk stratified by the cTn-HEART Pathway (Siemens TnI-Ultra at 0- and 3-h) and a hs-cTn-HEART Pathway using hs-cTnI (Abbott) or hs-cTnT (Roche) at 3-h. The early discharge rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) for MACE (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) at 30days were calculated. RESULTS: hs-cTnI measures were available on 133 patients. MACE occurred in 11/133 (8%) of these patients. Test characteristics for the HEART Pathway using serial cTnI vs 3hour hs-cTnI were the same: sensitivity (100%, 95%CI: 72-100%), specificity (49%, 95%CI: 40-58%), NPV (100%, 95%CI: 94-100%), and early discharge rate (45%, 95%CI: 37-54%). The HEART Pathway using hs-cTnT missed one MACE event (myocardial infarction): sensitivity (91%, 95%CI: 59-100%), specificity (48%, 95%CI: 39-57%), NPV (98%, 95%CI: 91-100%), and early discharge rate (45%, 95%CI: 37-54%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the test characteristics of the HEART Pathway whether using cTnI or hs-cTnI, with both achieving 100% sensitivity and NPV. Use of hs-cTnT with the HEART Pathway was associated with one missed MACE.

Chest Pain Risk Stratification: A Comparison of the 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (ADAPT) and the HEART Pathway.

BACKGROUND: The 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADAPT) and the history electrocardiogram age risk factors troponin (HEART) Pathway are decision aids designed to identify Emergency Department (ED) patients with chest pain who are safe for early discharge. Both have demonstrated high sensitivity (>99%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and early discharge rates ≥20%. The objective of this study is to compare the sensitivity and early discharge rates of the ADAPT and HEART Pathway decision aids in a cohort of ED patients with acute chest pain. METHODS: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled and randomized to the HEART Pathway arm of the HEART pathway randomized controlled trial was conducted. Each patient was prospectively classified as low risk (suitable for early discharge) or high risk by ADAPT and the HEART Pathway. Sensitivity for MACE at 30 days and the number of patients identified as low-risk were calculated for each decision aid. Decision aid performance was compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 8 of 141 (5.7%); there were no deaths, 7 patients had myocardial infarction, and 1 patient had coronary revascularization without myocardial infarction. ADAPT and the HEART pathway identified all patients with MACE as high risk; sensitivity for MACE of 100% [95% confidence interval (CI): 63-100%]. ADAPT identified 34 of 141 patients (24%; 95% CI: 17-32%) as low-risk, whereas the Heart pathway identified 66 of 141 patients (47%, 95% CI: 38-55%) as low risk (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within a cohort of ED patients with acute chest pain, ADAPT and the HEART pathway had high sensitivity for MACE. The HEART pathway outperformed ADAPT by correctly identifying more patients as low risk and safe for early discharge.

Adherence to an Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain: Secondary Analysis of the HEART Pathway Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Accelerated diagnostic protocols (ADPs), such as the HEART Pathway, are gaining popularity in emergency departments (EDs) as tools used to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, provider nonadherence may threaten the safety and effectiveness of ADPs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and impact of ADP nonadherence. METHODS: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway RCT was conducted. This trial enrolled 282 adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on electrocardiogram. Patients randomized to the HEART Pathway (N = 141) were included in this analysis. Outcomes included index visit disposition, nonadherence, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. MACE was defined as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Nonadherence was defined as: 1) undertesting-discharging a high-risk patient from the ED without objective testing (stress testing or coronary angiography) or 2) overtesting-admitting or obtaining objective testing on a low-risk patient. RESULTS: Nonadherence to the HEART Pathway occurred in 28 of 141 patients (20%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 27%). Overtesting occurred in 19 of 141 patients (13.5%, 95% CI = 8% to 19%) and undertesting in nine of 141 patients (6%, 95% CI = 3% to 12%). None of these 28 patients suffered MACE. The net effect of nonadherence was 10 additional admissions among patients identified as low-risk and appropriate for early discharge (absolute decrease in discharge rate of 7%, 95% CI = 3% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time use of the HEART Pathway resulted in a nonadherence rate of 20%, mostly due to overtesting. None of these patients had MACE within 30 days. Nonadherence decreased the discharge rate, attenuating the HEART Pathway's impact on health care use.

Performance of the EDACS-accelerated Diagnostic Pathway in a Cohort of US Patients with Acute Chest Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score-Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (EDACS-ADP) is a decision aid designed to safely identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge. Derivation and validation studies in Australasia have demonstrated high sensitivity (99%-100%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE). OBJECTIVES: To validate the EDACS-ADP in a cohort of US ED patients with symptoms suspicious for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway Randomized Controlled Trial was conducted. This single-site trial enrolled 282 ED patients≥21 years old with symptoms concerning for ACS, inclusive of all cardiac risk levels. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by the EDACS-ADP based on EDACS, electrocardiogram, and serial troponins. Potential early discharge rate and sensitivity for MACE at 30 days, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization were calculated. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 17/282 (6.0%) participants, including no deaths, 16/282 (5.6%) with MI, and 1/282 (0.4%) with coronary revascularization without MI. The EDACS-ADP identified 188/282 patients [66.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 60.8%-72.1%] as low risk. Of these, 2/188 (1.1%, 95% CI: 0.1%-3.9%) had MACE at 30 days. EDACS-ADP was 88.2% (95% CI: 63.6%-98.5%) sensitive for MACE, identifying 15/17 patients. Of the 2 patients identified as low risk with MACE, 1 had MI and 1 had coronary revascularization without MI. CONCLUSIONS: Within a US cohort of ED patients with symptoms concerning for ACS, sensitivity for MACE was 88.2%. We are unable to validate the EDACS-ADP as sufficiently sensitive for clinical use.

The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge.

BACKGROUND: The HEART Pathway is a decision aid designed to identify emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. No randomized trials have compared the HEART Pathway with usual care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adult emergency department patients with symptoms related to acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on ECG (n=282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, emergency department providers used the HEART score, a validated decision aid, and troponin measures at 0 and 3 hours to identify patients for early discharge. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary outcome, objective cardiac testing (stress testing or angiography), and secondary outcomes, index length of stay, early discharge, and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), were assessed at 30 days by phone interview and record review. Participants had a mean age of 53 years, 16% had previous myocardial infarction, and 6% (95% confidence interval, 3.6%-9.5%) had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of randomization. Compared with usual care, use of the HEART Pathway decreased objective cardiac testing at 30 days by 12.1% (68.8% versus 56.7%; P=0.048) and length of stay by 12 hours (9.9 versus 21.9 hours; P=0.013) and increased early discharges by 21.3% (39.7% versus 18.4%; P<0.001). No patients identified for early discharge had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART Pathway reduces objective cardiac testing during 30 days, shortens length of stay, and increases early discharges. These important efficiency gains occurred without any patients identified for early discharge suffering MACE at 30 days. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01665521.

Increasing Faculty Attendance at Emergency Medicine Resident Conferences: Does CME Credit Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND: Faculty involvement in resident teaching events is beneficial to resident education, yet evidence about the factors that promote faculty attendance at resident didactic conferences is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether offering continuing medical education (CME) credits would result in an increase in faculty attendance at weekly emergency medicine conferences and whether faculty would report the availability of CME credit as a motivating factor. METHODS: Our prospective, multi-site, observational study of 5 emergency medicine residency programs collected information on the number of faculty members present at CME and non-CME lectures for 9 months and collected information from faculty on factors influencing decisions to attend resident educational events and from residents on factors influencing their learning experience. RESULTS: Lectures offering CME credit on average were attended by 5 additional faculty members per hour, compared with conferences that did not offer CME credit (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-6.1; P < .001). Faculty reported their desire to "participate in resident education" was the most influential factor prompting them to attend lectures, followed by "explore current trends in emergency medicine" and the lecture's "specific topic." Faculty also reported that "clinical/administrative duties" and "family responsibilities" negatively affected their ability to attend. Residents reported that the most important positive factor influencing their conference experience was "lectures given by faculty." CONCLUSIONS: Although faculty reported that CME credit was not an important factor in their decision to attend resident conferences, offering CME credit resulted in significant increases in faculty attendance. Residents reported that "lectures given by faculty" and "faculty attendance" positively affected their learning experience.

Approach to non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department: risk stratification and treatment strategies.

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among Americans. A significant share of all resources for health care is allocated for the diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. Because millions of patients visit emergency departments with chest pain and other symptoms that might indicate ACS, the clinician must be familiar with appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic treatment measures. Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS is a particularly challenging clinical entity due in part to limitations in the diagnostic tools employed to detect it and the wide range of therapeutic options available to treat it. Despite advances in the treatment of ACS and the dissemination of formal recommendations on approaches to managing NSTE ACS, pharmacologic and reperfusion therapy remain underused and often delayed. This results in an increase in adverse cardiac events for patients and rising health care costs for the public. The key to NSTE ACS management is rigorous adherence and application of evidence-based recommendations. The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) have released comprehensive clinical practice guidelines to manage NSTE ACS. These include a process of risk stratification of patients presenting with NSTE ACS or possible NSTE ACS. Risk stratification can be performed using a number of scoring models, including the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), and the Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) scoring models. Once a patient's risk for adverse cardiac events is determined, appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic modalities can be selected to match their level of risk. American College of Cardiology/AHA recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of NSTE ACS include considerations regarding admission, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, and early percutaneous coronary intervention/diagnostic angiography with the intent to perform revascularization. New information has emerged since the release of the 2007 updated ACC/AHA guidelines. The 2009 update of the ACC/AHA guidelines includes new recommendations on antiplatelet therapy, early invasive therapy, and the timing of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy for patients with NSTE ACS. Considering this new information during the application of the ACC/AHA guidelines will enhance selecting the optimal treatment for the NSTE ACS patient and ensure appropriate use of health care resources.