RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A significant number of chest pain patients had previous cardiac imaging tests (CIT) performed before being presented to the Emergency Department (ED). The HEART (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin) score has been used to risk-stratify chest pain patients in the ED, but not particularly for patients with CIT performed. We aim to modify the current HEART score with the addition of most recent CIT findings (referred to as HEART2 score), to predict a 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE) among ED chest pain patients, compare the performance accuracy of using HEART versus HEART2 score for 30-day MACE outcome predictions, and further determine the value of HEART2 in a subset group of ED chest pain patients (i.e., ones with previous CIT). METHODS: This is a single-center observational study. We included chest pain patients with HEART scores calculated during their index ED visits. A modified HEART2 score was developed with the addition of CIT findings as one of the HEART2 components. Patients were divided into three groups, including low (≤ 3), moderate (4-6), and high-risk HEART/HEART2 scores (≥ 7). MACE occurrence of a patient with different risks of HEART and HEART2 scores and overall performance accuracy of HEART versus HEART2 score predicting MACE outcomes were compared. RESULTS: We included a total of 9419 chest pain patients at ED, among which one out of five patients (1874/9419) had previous CIT performed. Fewer (38.2%) of such patients had low-risk HEART scores in comparison to 55.5% of low-risk HEART2 scores (p < 0.001). The MACE outcomes were similar in low-risk HEART patients compared with low-risk HEART2 patients (2.2% versus 3.1%, p = 0.3021). The overall performance accuracy of using the HEART2 score to stratify chest pain patients with previous CIT was better than using the HEART score's (AUC 0.74 versus 0.71, p = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: Using the HEART2 score might be suitable to stratify low-to-moderate risk chest pain patients at ED with a similar 30-days MACE occurrence compared to the HEART score. More importantly, with the use of similar low-risk criteria (HEART2 ≤ 3), over 45% more chest pain patients with previous CIT performed could be discharged directly from ED.
Assuntos
Dor no Peito , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Dor no Peito/diagnóstico , Dor no Peito/epidemiologia , Dor no Peito/etiologia , Eletrocardiografia , Humanos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Medição de Risco/métodos , Fatores de Risco , TroponinaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the role of the HEART (history, EKG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score in the evaluation of six clinical outcomes among three groups of patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among three ED patient groups including White, Black, and Hispanic patients. ED providers used the HEART score to assess the need for patient hospital admission and for emergent cardiac imaging tests (CITs). HEART scores were measured using classification accuracy rates. Performance accuracies were measured in terms of HEART score in relation to four clinical outcomes (positive findings of CITs, ED returns, hospital readmissions, and 30-day major adverse cardiac events [MACE]). RESULTS: A high classification accuracy rate (87%) was found for use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. HEART scores showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66-0.78) in predicting results of emergent CITs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Providers adhered to use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. The HEART score may be associated with emergent CIT findings, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes, with no differences among White, Black, and Hispanic patient populations.
Assuntos
Dor no Peito , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Humanos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
The HEART score is used to effectively risk stratify undifferentiated chest pain patients in the Emergency Department (ED). It is unclear whether such risk stratification can be applied among ED high utilizers. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of using the HEART score to predict 30-day short-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ED high utilizers. We conducted a retrospective, observational study in which ED high utilizers were defined as patients who had four or more ED visits within the past 12 months. ED high utilizers presenting at the study ED with chest pain were enrolled. Patients in which the HEART score was utilized were placed in the HEART group and patients with no HEART scores documented were placed to the usual care group. Hospital admissions and cardiac stress tests performed during the index hospitalizations, and 30-day MACE rates were analyzed and compared between the HEART and usual care groups. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019, a total of 8,315 patient visits from ED high utilizers were enrolled. In the HEART group, 49% of ED visits were admitted with 20% receiving stress tests. A 30-day MACE outcome occurred among 1.4% of visits. In the usual care group, 44% of ED visits were admitted, with only 9% receiving index stress tests and a 1.5% of 30-day MACE occurrence (p=0.727). The study showed that similar short-term MACE outcomes occurred between patients using HEART scores and usual care to risk stratify chest pain among ED high utilizers.
Assuntos
Angina Pectoris/diagnóstico , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Indicadores Básicos de Saúde , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Adulto , Angina Pectoris/etiologia , Angina Pectoris/terapia , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Feminino , Testes de Função Cardíaca , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Admissão do Paciente , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de TempoAssuntos
Dor no Peito , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Medição de Risco/métodos , Triagem/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In the US, ultrasound in Emergency Medicine (EM) is widely considered the standard of care in clinical practice amongst most Emergency Department providers. At the authors' institution and affiliates, there were a variety of health care providers utilizing ultrasound for clinical practice, and their skill levels varied, dependent on training and exposure. As an attempt to standardize credentialing practice and determine need for additional training thresholds, the authors endeavored to perform a skills assessment utilizing both written and clinical based practical assessments. METHODS: A 7 point questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of providers requesting formal training information, number of ultrasounds performed, and self-assessed competency. A 10 point written assessment with ultrasound knowledge and clinical application questions was also administered. A subsequent clinical assessment on live humans and models was then performed with multiple stations assessing 15 different instrumentation skills and technique, as well as image interpretation and evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 23 attending EM board-certified physicians, and four advanced practice providers (PA and NP) took the credentialing assessments scoring an average of 7.3 out of 10 (SD 0.83) for the written assessment. Twenty (71%) of the 28 tested passed the clinical evaluation on their initial attempt. Five (17%) passed on a first remediation. Three (10%) required more than one initial revision attempt. All those who did remediate were able to complete the revision with a passing score. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the testing was considered a successful process. This program appears to have offered a level of standardization that was appealing to the credentialing body at our institution. We were able to assess to a level of competence considered standard of care by national credentialing bodies.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Headaches represent over three million emergency department (ED) visits per year, comprising 2.4% of all ED visits. There are many proposed methods and clinical guidelines of treating acute headache presentations. However, data on intravenous acetaminophen usage in these settings are lacking. In this study, we sought to determine the efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of "headache." METHODS: We conducted a single site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the clinical efficacy of IV acetaminophen as an adjunct to a standard therapy with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine for the treatment of patients who present to the ED with a chief complaint of "headache" or variants thereof. (See below for variants). The primary outcome measure of the efficacy of parenteral acetaminophen as an adjunct treatment for headache in addition to a standard therapy was a threshold two-point reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores on a 1-10 level at 90 minutes. Secondary outcomes measures included assessment of decreased requirement of "rescue" pain medicines, defined as any analgesic medications outside of diphenhydramine, prochlorperazine and acetaminophen, with particular interest to potential opioid-sparing effects with parenteral acetaminophen. Additional secondary outcome measure included time to disposition from arrival in the ED. RESULTS: For the acetaminophen group the initial mean pain score was 8.67, for the placebo group 8.61. At 90 minutes pain score was 2.23 for the acetaminophen group and 3.99 for placebo (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.8%-16%]. Of 45 patients in each group, we observed at least a threshold two-point decrease in pain score 36/45 (80%) with acetaminophen vs. 25/45 (55%) with placebo (p <0.01) 95% CI [5%-41%], number needed to treat (NNT) = 4). Secondary outcome measure did not demonstrate a difference in length of stay (161 minutes for acetaminophen arm and 159 minutes for placebo). However, 17/45 (38%) of patients who received IV acetaminophen required rescue analgesia, opposed to 24/45 (53%) of patients in the placebo group (p=0.13) 95% CI [-5%-34%]. CONCLUSION: IV acetaminophen when used with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine to treat acute headaches in the ED resulted in statistically significant pain reduction compared with prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine alone as measured by both threshold of lowering VAS pain score by at least two points (NNT = 4) and overall decline in VAS pain score. Further study is required to validate these results.