Clinical decision support to Optimize Care of patients with Atrial Fibrillation or flutter in the Emergency department: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic trial (O'CAFÉ trial).

BACKGROUND: Management of adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter in the emergency department (ED) includes rate reduction, cardioversion, and stroke prevention. Different approaches to these components of care may lead to variation in frequency of hospitalization and stroke prevention actions, with significant implications for patient experience, cost of care, and risk of complications. Standardization using evidence-based recommendations could reduce variation in management, preventable hospitalizations, and stroke risk. METHODS: We describe the rationale for our ED-based AF treatment recommendations. We also describe the development of an electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to deliver these recommendations to emergency physicians at the point of care. We implemented the CDSS at three pilot sites to assess feasibility and solicit user feedback. We will evaluate the impact of the CDSS on hospitalization and stroke prevention actions using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial across 13 community EDs in Northern California. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that the CDSS intervention will reduce hospitalization of adults with isolated AF or atrial flutter presenting to the ED and increase anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients at the time of ED discharge and within 30 days. If our hypotheses are confirmed, the treatment protocol and CDSS could be recommended to other EDs to improve management of adults with AF or atrial flutter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05009225 .  Registered on 17 August 2021.

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.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients evaluated in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study of 801 cases.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has extracted devastating tolls. Despite its pervasiveness, robust information on disease characteristics in the emergency department (ED) and how that information predicts clinical course remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first ED visit from SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in our health system, from February 21, 2020 to April 5, 2020. We reviewed each patient's ED visit(s) and included the first visit with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We collected demographic, clinical, and treatment variables from electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between patient characteristics and 2 primary outcomes: a critical outcome and hospitalization from index visit. Our critical outcome was defined as death or advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula or greater) within 21 days. RESULTS: Of the first 1030 encounters, 801 met our inclusion criteria: 15% were over age 75 years, 47% were female, and 24% were non-Hispanic white. We found 161 (20%) had a critical outcome and 393 (49%) were hospitalized. Independent predictors of a critical outcome included a history of hypertension, abnormal chest x-ray, elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN), measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation). Independent predictors of hospitalization included abnormal pulmonary auscultation, elevated BUN, measured fever, and abnormal respiratory vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, diverse study of ED patients with COVID-19, we have identified numerous clinical characteristics that have independent associations with critical illness and hospitalization.

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.

Effect of Clinical Decision Support on Diagnostic Imaging for Pediatric Appendicitis: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Appendicitis is the most common pediatric surgical emergency. Efforts to improve efficiency and quality of care have increased reliance on computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) in children with suspected appendicitis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic health record-linked clinical decision support intervention, AppyCDS, on diagnostic imaging, health care costs, and safety outcomes for patients with suspected appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this parallel, cluster randomized trial, 17 community-based general emergency departments (EDs) in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were randomized to the AppyCDS intervention group or usual care (UC) group. Patients were aged 5 to 20 years, presenting for an ED visit with right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain lasting 5 days or less. We excluded pregnant patients, those with a prior appendectomy, those with selected comorbidities, and those with traumatic injuries. The trial was conducted from October 2016 to July 2019. Interventions: AppyCDS prompted data entry at the point of care to estimate appendicitis risk using the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC). Based on pARC estimates, AppyCDS recommended next steps in care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CT, US, or any imaging (CT or US) during the index ED visit. Safety outcomes were perforations, negative appendectomies, and missed appendicitis. Costs were a secondary outcome. Ratio of ratios (RORs) for primary and safety outcomes and differences by group in cost were used to evaluate effectiveness of the clinical decision support tool. Results: We enrolled 3161 patients at intervention EDs and 2779 patients at UC EDs. The mean age of patients was 11.9 (4.6) years and 2614 (44.0%) were boys or young men. RORs for CT (0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19), US (0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.14), and any imaging (0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07) did not differ by study group. In an exploratory analysis conducted in 1 health system, AppyCDS was associated with a reduction in any imaging (ROR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73- 0.93) for patients with pARC score of 15% or less and a reduction in CT (ROR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74) for patients with a pARC score of 16% to 50%. Perforations, negative appendectomies, and cases of missed appendicitis by study phase did not differ significantly by study group. Costs did not differ overall by study group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, AppyCDS was not associated with overall reductions in diagnostic imaging; exploratory analysis revealed more appropriate use of imaging in patients with a low pARC score. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02633735.

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.

Presyncope Is Associated with Intensive Care Unit Admission in Emergency Department Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Syncope is common among emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and indicates a higher acuity and worse prognosis than in patients without syncope. Whether presyncope carries the same prognostic implications has not been established. We compared incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in three groups of ED PE patients: those with presyncope; syncope; and neither. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adults with acute, objectively confirmed PE in 21 community EDs from January 2013-April 2015. We combined electronic health record extraction with manual chart abstraction. We used chi-square test for univariate comparisons and performed multivariate analysis to evaluate associations between presyncope or syncope and ICU admission from the ED, reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 2996 PE patients, 82 (2.7%) had presyncope and 109 (3.6%) had syncope. ICU admission was similar between groups (presyncope 18.3% vs syncope 25.7%) and different than their non-syncope counterparts (either 22.5% vs neither 4.7%; p<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, both presyncope and syncope were independently associated with ICU admission, controlling for demographics, higher-risk PE Severity Index (PESI) class, ventilatory support, proximal clot location, and submassive and massive PE classification: presyncope, aOR 2.79 (95% CI, 1.40, 5.56); syncope, aOR 4.44 (95% CI 2.52, 7.80). These associations were only minimally affected when excluding massive PE from the model. There was no significant interaction between either syncope or presyncope and PESI, submassive or massive classification in predicting ICU admission. CONCLUSION: Presyncope appears to carry similar strength of association with ICU admission as syncope in ED patients with acute PE. If this is confirmed, clinicians evaluating patients with acute PE may benefit from including presyncope in their calculus of risk assessment and site-of-care decision-making.

Diagnostic Performance of Emergency Physician Gestalt for Predicting Acute Appendicitis in Patients Age 5 to 20 Years.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric appendicitis remains a challenging diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Available risk prediction algorithms may contribute to excessive ED imaging studies. Incorporation of physician gestalt assessment could help refine predictive tools and improve diagnostic imaging decisions. METHODS: This study was a subanalysis of a parent study that prospectively enrolled patients ages 5 to 20.9 years with a chief complaint of abdominal pain presenting to 11 community EDs within an integrated delivery system between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018. Prior to diagnostic imaging, attending emergency physicians enrolled patients with ≤5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain using a Web-based application embedded in the electronic health record. Predicted risk (gestalt) of acute appendicitis was prospectively entered using a sliding scale from 1% to 100%. As a planned secondary analysis, we assessed the performance of gestalt via c-statistics of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; tested associations between gestalt performance and patient, physician, and facility characteristics; and examined clinical characteristics affecting gestalt estimates. RESULTS: Of 3,426 patients, 334 (9.8%) had confirmed appendicitis. Physician gestalt had excellent ROC curve characteristics (c-statistic = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 0.85), performing particularly well in the low-risk strata (appendicitis rate = 1.1% in gestalt 1%-10% range, negative predictive value of 98.9% for appendicitis diagnosis). Physicians with ≥5 years since medical school graduation demonstrated improved gestalt performance over those with less experience (p = 0.007). All clinical characteristics tested, except pain <24 hours, were significantly associated with physician gestalt value (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Physician gestalt for acute appendicitis diagnosis performed well, especially in low-risk patients and when employed by experienced physicians.

Validation of the Pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) in a Community Emergency Department Setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) is a validated clinical tool for assessing a child's probability of appendicitis. Our objective was to assess the performance of the pARC in community emergency departments (EDs) and to compare its performance with that of the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS). METHODS: We conducted a prospective validation study from October 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, in 11 community EDs serving general populations. Patients aged 5 to 20.9 years and with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and less than or equal to 5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain were eligible for study enrollment. Our primary outcome was the presence or absence of appendicitis within 7 days of the index visit. We reported performance characteristics and secondary outcomes by pARC risk strata and compared the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of the PAS and pARC. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,089 patients with a mean age of 12.4 years, 46% of whom were male patients. Appendicitis was confirmed in 353 patients (16.9%), of whom 55 (15.6%) had perforated appendixes. Fifty-four percent of patients had very low (<5%) or low (5% to 14%) predicted risk, 43% had intermediate risk (15% to 84%), and 4% had high risk (≥85%). In the very-low- and low-risk groups, 1.4% and 3.0% of patients had appendicitis, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92) for the pARC compared with 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.82) for the PAS. CONCLUSION: The pARC accurately assessed appendicitis risk for children aged 5 years and older in community EDs and the pARC outperformed the PAS.