Search

Objective Delays in care for patients with acute cardiac complaints are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to quantify rural and urban differences in prehospital time intervals for patients with cardiac complaints. Methods The ESO Data Collaborative dataset consisting of records from 1332 EMS agencies was queried for 9–1-1 encounters with acute cardiac problems among adults (age ≥ 18) from 1/1/2013–6/1/2018. Location was classified as rural or urban using the 2010 United States Census. The primary outcome was total prehospital time. Generalized estimating equations evaluated differences in the average times between rural and urban encounters while controlling for age, sex, race, transport mode, loaded mileage, and patient stability. Results Among 428,054 encounters, the median age was 62 (IQR 50–75) years with 50.7% female, 75.3% white, and 10.3% rural. The median total prehospital, response, scene, and transport times were 37.0 (IQR 29.0–48.0), 6.0 (IQR 4.0–9.0), 16.0 (IQR 12.0–21.0), and 13.0 (IQR 8.0–21.0) minutes. Rural patients had an average total prehospital time that was 16.76 min (95%CI 15.15–18.38) longer than urban patients. After adjusting for covariates, average total time was 5.08 (95%CI 4.37–5.78) minutes longer for rural patients. Average response and transport time were 4.36 (95%CI 3.83–4.89) and 0.62 (95%CI 0.33–0.90) minutes longer for rural patients. Scene time was similar in rural and urban patients (0.09 min, 95%CI -0.15-0.33). Conclusion Rural patients with acute cardiac complaints experienced longer prehospital time than urban patients, even after accounting for other key variables, such as loaded mileage.

Background Expediting the measurement of serum troponin by leveraging EMS blood collection could reduce the diagnostic time for patients with acute chest pain and help address Emergency Department (ED) overcrowding. However, this practice has not been examined among an ED chest pain patient population in the United States. Methods A prospective observational cohort study of adults with non-traumatic chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was conducted in three EMS agencies between 12/2016–4/2018. During transport, paramedics obtained a patient blood sample that was sent directly to the hospital core lab for troponin measurement. On ED arrival HEART Pathway assessments were completed by ED providers as part of standard care. ED providers were blinded to troponin results from EMS blood samples. To evaluate the potential impact on length of stay (LOS), the time difference between EMS blood draw and first clinical ED draw was calculated. To determine the safety of using troponin measures from EMS blood samples, the diagnostic performance of the HEART Pathway for 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE: composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization) was determined using EMS troponin plus arrival ED troponin and EMS troponin plus a serial 3-h ED troponin. Results The use of EMS blood samples for troponin measures among 401 patients presenting with acute chest pain resulted in a mean potential reduction in LOS of 72.5 ± SD 35.7 min. MACE at 30 days occurred in 21.0% (84/401), with 1 cardiac death, 78 MIs, and 5 revascularizations without MI. Use of the HEART Pathway with EMS and ED arrival troponin measures yielded a NPV of 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6–100). NPV improved to 100% (95% CI: 92.9–100) when using the EMS and 3-h ED troponin measures. Conclusions EMS blood collection used for core lab ED troponin measures could significantly reduce ED LOS and appears safe when integrated into the HEART Pathway.

Millions of patients present to US EDs each year with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but fewer than 10% are ultimately diagnosed with ACS. Well-tested and externally validated accelerated diagnostic protocols were developed to aid providers in risk stratifying patients with possible ACS and have become central components of current ED practice guidelines. Nevertheless, the fear of missing ACS continues to be a strong motivator for ED providers to pursue further testing for their patients. An ethical dilemma arises when the provider must balance the risk of ACS if the patient is discharged compared with the potential harms caused by a cardiac workup. Providers should be familiar with the ethical principles relevant to this dilemma in order to determine what is in the best interests of the patient.

BACKGROUND: The HEART Pathway is an accelerated diagnostic protocol for Emergency Department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. The objective was to compare the safety and effectiveness of the HEART Pathway among women vs men and whites vs non-whites. METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study was conducted. Adults with chest pain were accrued from November 2013 to January 2016 from 3 Emergency Departments in North Carolina. The primary outcomes were death and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days. Logistic regression evaluated for interactions of accelerated diagnostic protocol implementation with sex or race and changes in outcomes within subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 8,474 patients were accrued, of which 53.6% were female and 34.0% were non-white. The HEART Pathway identified 32.6% of females as low-risk vs 28.5% of males (P = 002) and 35.6% of non-whites as low-risk vs 28.0% of whites (P < .0001). Among low-risk patients, death or MI at 30 days occurred in 0.4% of females vs 0.5% of males (P = .70) and 0.5% of non-whites vs 0.3% of whites (P = .69). Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6.6% in females (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64–0.85), 5.1% in males (aOR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75–1.02), 8.6% in non-whites (aOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60–0.86), and 4.5% in whites (aOR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.94). Interactions were not significant. CONCLUSION: Women and non-whites are more likely to be classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway. HEART Pathway implementation is associated with decreased hospitalizations and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients regardless of sex or race.

Background Risk scores including the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score; History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score; and Simplified Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (sEDACS) have been used to evaluate patients with symptoms suggestive of acute myocardial infarct (AMI). This study assessed prognostic utility of cardiac risk stratification scores when augmented with a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin-I assay (hs-cTnI). Methods This study enrolled 2,505 suspected AMI patients at 29 hospitals in the United States from April 2015 to April 2016. Blood samples were tested for hs-cTnI on the Atellica IM TnIH Assay (Siemens Healthineers). Patients were considered low risk for death/AMI with a TIMI score = 0, HEART ≤3, sEDACS ≤15, and hs-cTnI Results There were 2,336 patients included after exclusions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or incomplete data. At 30 days, 283 patients (12.1%) had been diagnosed with AMI, and there were 24 (1.0%) deaths and 213 (9.1%) revascularizations. Of 298 patients with death or AMI, 258 (86.6%) had elevated hs-cTnI. The HEART score and sEDACS identified 34.5% and 36.6% of patients as low risk, respectively. This was significantly more than the 12.1% identified by the TIMI score (P Conclusions The TIMI, HEART, and sEDACS scores all identify low-risk patients when combined with hs-cTnI measurements. The HEART score and sEDACS identified more low-risk patients compared to the TIMI score. These patients could be considered for discharge from the emergency department without further testing.

BackgroundThe HEART Pathway combines a History ECG Age Risk factor (HEAR) score and serial troponins to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, it is unclear whether patients with HEAR scores of <1 require troponin testing. The objective of this study is to measure the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate among patients with <1 HEAR scores and determine whether serial troponin testing is needed to achieve a miss rate MethodsA secondary analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study was conducted. HEART Pathway risk assessments (HEAR scores and serial troponin testing at 0 and 3 hours) were completed by the providers on adult patients with chest pain from three US sites between November 2014 and January 2016. MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days was determined. The proportion of patients with HEAR scores of <1 diagnosed with MACE within 30 days was calculated. The impact of troponin testing on patients with HEAR scores of <1 was determined using Net Reclassification Improvement Index (NRI).ResultsProviders completed HEAR assessments on 4979 patients and HEAR scores<1 was 97.8% (95%CI 94.5% to 99.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.7% to 99.8%), respectively, and were not improved by troponin testing. Troponin testing in patients with HEAR <1 correctly reclassified two patients diagnosed with MACE, and was elevated among seven patients without MACE yielding an NRI of 0.9% (95%CI −0.7 to 2.4%).ConclusionThese data suggest that patients with HEAR scores of 0 and 1 represent a very low-risk group that may not require troponin testing to achieve a missed MACE rate Trial registration numberNCT02056964

BackgroundThe History Electrocardiogram Age Risk factor Troponin (HEART) Pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) are validated accelerated diagnostic pathways designed to risk stratify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Data from large multisite prospective studies comparing these accelerated diagnostic pathways are limited.MethodsThe HEART Pathway Implementation is a prospective three-site cohort study, which accrued adults with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome. Physicians completed electronic health record HEART Pathway and EDACS risk assessments on participants. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days were determined using electronic health record, insurance claims and death index data. Test characteristics for detection of major adverse cardiac events were calculated for both accelerated diagnostic pathways and McNemar’s tests were used for comparisons.Results5799 patients presenting to the emergency department were accrued, of which HEART Pathway and EDACS assessments were completed on 4399. Major adverse cardiac events at 30 days occurred in 449/4399 (10.2%). The HEART Pathway identified 38.4% (95% CI 37.0% to 39.9%) of patients as low-risk compared with 58.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 59.6%) identified as low-risk by EDACS (pConclusionsEDACS identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the HEART Pathway, but has a higher missed major adverse cardiac events rate at 30 days. Physicians will need to consider their risk tolerance when deciding whether to adopt the HEART Pathway or EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway.Trial registration numberNCT02056964.

Objective: Use of point-of-care (POC) troponin (cTn) testing in the Emergency Department (ED) is well established. However, data examining POC cTn measurement in the prehospital setting, during amb...

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) I or T methods have been in use in certain regions for years but are now increasingly globally adopted, including in the United States. Accordingly, inevitable challenges are created for institutions transitioning from conventional cardiac troponin (cTn) assays. hs-cTn assays have higher analytic precision at lower concentrations, yielding greater clinical sensitivity for myocardial injury and allowing accurate recognition of small changes in troponin concentration (rise or fall) within a short time frame. Although much of the knowledge regarding troponin biology that was applicable with older troponin assays still holds true, considerable education regarding the differences between conventional cTn and hs-cTn is needed before medical systems convert to the newer methods. This includes a basic understanding of how hs-cTn testing differs from conventional cTn testing and how it is best deployed in different settings, such as the emergency department and inpatient services. This Expert Panel will review important concepts for institutional transition to hs-cTn methodology, providing recommendations useful for education before implementation.

Objective The HEART Pathway is an evidence-based decision tool for identifying emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain who are candidates for early discharge, to reduce unhelpful and potentially harmful hospitalizations. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we sought to identify important barriers and facilitators to implementation of the HEART Pathway. Study setting Data were collected at 4 academic medical centers. Study design We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 key stakeholders (e.g., health system leaders, ED physicians). We conducted interviews before implementation of the HEART Pathway tool to identify potential barriers and facilitators to successful adoption at other regional academic medical centers. We also conducted postimplementation interviews at 1 medical center, to understand factors that contributed to successful adoption. Data collection Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework-driven deductive approach for coding and analysis. Principal findings Potential barriers to implementation include time and resource burden, challenges specific to the electronic health record, sustained communication with and engagement of stakeholders, and patient concerns. Facilitators to implementation include strength of evidence for reduced length of stay and unnecessary testing and iatrogenic complications, ease of use, and supportive provider climate for evidence-based decision tools. Conclusions Successful dissemination of the HEART Pathway will require addressing institution-specific barriers, which includes engaging clinical and financial stakeholders. New SMART-FHIR technologies, compatible with many electronic health record systems, can overcome barriers to health systems with limited information technology resources.

BACKGROUND: Data evaluating the impact of the history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin (HEART) Pathway on observation unit (OU) use is limited. The objective of this study is to determine how HEART Pathway implementation affects OU use. METHODS: An analysis of OU registry data from October 2012 to October 2016, 2 years before and after HEART Pathway implementation at an academic medical center, was conducted. Adult patients placed in the OU for chest pain were included. The proportion of patients placed in the OU chest pain protocol per total OU volume and hospitalization and myocardial infarction (MI) rates were determined. Proportions before versus after implementation were compared using χ(2) tests and age was compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: During the study period, 1688 patients with chest pain before HEART Pathway implementation and 1692 after were included. The proportion of chest pain patients in the OU per total OU volume decreased following implementation from (57% [1688/2968] to 43.6% [1692/3882]; P < 0.001). Before HEART Pathway implementation, the hospitalization rate was 10.4% (175/1688) versus 12.4% (210/1692) after (P = 0.07). More patients were diagnosed with MI following implementation (0.8% [14/1665] vs. 2.0% [33/1686]; P = 0. 008). Median age was older postimplementation (52 years [IQR: 45–59 years] vs. 54 years [IQR: 48–64 years]; P < 0. 001). CONCLUSIONS: HEART Pathway implementation resulted in management of higher risk patients in the OU. Following implementation, OU chest pain patients were older and were more likely to be hospitalized or diagnosed with MI.

Background The ESC 0/1-hour algorithm using high sensitivity troponin (ESC 0/1-h) is a rapid triage protocol for diagnosing acute coronary syndrome, however the classification performance of the algorithm in the US population is uncertain. Further, evidence for the use of ESC 0/1-h in the long-term diagnosis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) remains limited. Purpose To evaluate the performance of the ESC 0/1-h algorithm in diagnosing 90-day MACE in a diverse US cohort. Methods In this prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study, adult emergency department patients who were evaluated for suspected ACS were enrolled at eight sites in the US. Serial 1-hour blood samples were collected and high sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentrations were measured in a central laboratory using the hs-cTnT assay. Primary outcome included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 90 (+30) days of enrollment. MACE defined as myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular or uncertain death, and coronary revascularization. Presence of MI and cardiovascular death were adjudicated by independent reviewers blinded to hs-cTnT results. Each participant was stratified to one of three risk groups as determined by ESC 0/1-h algorithm. Diagnostic classification performance metrics with exact confidence intervals (i.e. negative predictive value [NPV], positive predicted value [PPV], sensitivity, and specificity) were evaluated for each risk group where appropriate. Results Among 1430 eligible participants, 45.8% (655/1430) were women and 36.6% (524/1430) were African American with a mean age of 57.6±12.8 years. MACE at 90-days occurred in 15.5% (221/1430). ESC 0/1-h stratified 59.5% (851/1430) subjects in Rule-Out range and 13.0% (186/1430) subjects in Rule-In range. The Rule-Out criteria had an NPV and sensitivity for 90-day MACE of 96.8% (95% CI: 95.4–97.9%) and 87.8% (95% CI: 82.7–91.8%), respectively. For 90-day cardiovascular death or MI, Rule-Out criteria had an NPV of 98.2% (95% CI: 97.1–99.0%) and sensitivity was 92.4% (95% CI: 87.8–95.7%). The Rule-In criteria had a PPV of 60.8% (95% CI: 53.3–67.8%) for both outcomes. Rule-In criteria had a specificity for 90-day MACE and 90-day cardiovascular death or MI of 94.0% (95% CI: 92.5–95.2%) and 94.1% (95% CI: 92.6–95.3%), respectively. Among the 27.5% (393/1430) participants classified in neither risk groups, the prevalence of 90-day MACE was 20.6% (81/393) and the prevalence of 90-day cardiovascular death or MI was 17.8% (70/393) Conclusion In a prospective, multicenter, US cohort, the ESC 0/1-h algorithm was unable to achieve a sufficiently high NPV to safely exclude the diagnosis of MACE within 90 days after emergency department presentation. New hs-cTn algorithms specific to the US population may be warranted. ESC 0/1-h 90 Day Outcomes Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Roche Diagnostics

Background Protocols utilizing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays for the evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) have been gaining popularity across the US and the world. These protocols more rapidly rule-out ACS and more accurately identify the presence of acute myocardial injury. At this time, few randomized trials have evaluated the safety and operational impact of these assays, resulting in limited evidence to guide the use and implementation of hs-cTn in the ED. Objective The main study objective is to test the effectiveness of a rapid ACS rule-out pathway using hs-cTnI in safely discharging patients from the ED for whom clinical suspicion for ACS exists. Design This prospective, implementation trial (n = 11,070) will utilize a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The design will allow for all participating sites to capture benefit from the implementation of the hs-cTnI pathway while providing data evaluating the effectiveness in providing safe and rapid evaluation of patients with clinical suspicion for ACS. Summary Demonstrating that clinical pathways using hs-cTnI can be effectively implemented to rapidly rule-out ACS while conserving costly hospital resources has significant implications for the care of patients with possible acute cardiac conditions in EDs across the US. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04488913.

Study objective We determine whether implementation of the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin) Pathway is safe and effective in emergency department (ED) patients with possible acute coronary syndrome through 1 year of follow-up. Methods A preplanned analysis of 1-year follow-up data from a prospective pre-post study of 8,474 adult ED patients with possible acute coronary syndrome from 3 US sites was conducted. Patients included were aged 21 years or older, evaluated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation, from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or nonlow risk (appropriate for further inhospital evaluation). Safety (all-cause death and myocardial infarction) and effectiveness (hospitalization) at 1 year were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. Results Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3,713 and 4,761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% of patients as low risk; 97.5% of them were free of death and myocardial infarction within 1 year. Hospitalization at 1 year was reduced by 7.0% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (62.1% versus 69.1%; adjusted odds ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.78). Rates of death or myocardial infarction at 1 year were similar (11.6% versus 12.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.16). Conclusion HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations and low adverse event rates among low-risk patients at 1-year follow-up.

The HEART Pathway is a validated risk stratification protocol for Emergency Department patients with chest pain that has yet to be tested in the prehospital setting. This study seeks to test the performance of a prehospital modified HEART Pathway (PMHP). A prospective cohort study of adults with chest pain without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was conducted at three EMS agencies between 12/2016-1/2018. To complete a PMHP assessment, paramedics drew blood, measured point-of-care (POC) troponin (i-STAT; Abbott Point of Care) and calculated a HEAR score. Patients were stratified into three groups: high-risk based on an elevated troponin, low-risk based on a HEAR score

Background: The HEART Pathway (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin) is an accelerated diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30-day death and myocardial infarction rate Methods: A prospective pre-post study was conducted at 3 US sites among 8474 adult emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and had no evidence of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction on ECG. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After accelerated diagnostic protocol integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. Results: Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (55.6% versus 61.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.87). During the index visit, more MIs were detected in the postimplementation cohort (6.6% versus 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12–1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58–1.33). Conclusions: HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02056964.

Author(s): Alley, William D.; Burns, Cynthia; Hartman, Nicholas D.; Askew, Kim; Mahler, Simon A. | Abstract: Introduction: Chest pain is a common chief complaint among patients presenting to health systems and often leads to complex and intensive evaluations. While these patients are often cared for by a multidisciplinary team (primary care, emergency medicine, and cardiology), medical students usually learn about the care of these patients in a fragmented, single-specialty paradigm. The present and future care of patients with chest pain is multidisciplinary, and the education of medical students on the subject should be as well. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary, problem-based learning workshop to teach third-year medical students about risk assessment for patients presenting with chest pain, specifically focusing on acute coronary syndromes. Methods: To create an educational experience consistent with multidisciplinary team-based care, we designed a multidisciplinary, problem-based learning workshop to provide medical students with an understanding of how patients with chest pain are cared for in a systems-based manner to improve outcomes. Participants included third-year medical students (n=219) at a single, tertiary care, academic medical center. Knowledge acquisition was tested in a pre-/post-retention test study design. Results: Following the workshop, students achieved a 19.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] [17.3-22.2%]) absolute increase in scores on post-testing as compared to pre-testing. In addition, students maintained an 11.1% (95% CI [7.2-15.0%]) increase on a retention test vs. the pre-test. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary, problem-based learning workshop is an effective method of producing lasting gains in student knowledge about chest pain risk stratification.

We created and tested an educational intervention to support implementation of an institution wide QI project (the HEART Pathway) designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain. Although online learning modules have been shown effective in imparting knowledge regarding QI projects, it is unknown whether these modules are effective across specialties and healthcare professions. Participants, including nurses, advanced practice clinicians, house staff and attending physicians (N = 486), were enrolled into an online, self-directed learning course exploring the key concepts of the HEART Pathway. The module was completed by 97% of enrollees (469/486) and 90% passed on the first attempt (422/469). Out of 469 learners, 323 completed the pretest, learning module and posttest in the correct order. Mean test scores across learners improved significantly from 74% to 89% from the pretest to the posttest. Following the intervention, the HEART Pathway was used for 88% of patients presenting to our institution with acute chest pain. Our data demonstrate that this online, self-directed learning module can improve knowledge of the HEART Pathway across specialties-paving the way for more efficient and informed care for acute chest pain patients.

Background Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with chest pain experience lower odds of receiving stress testing compared with nonminorities. Studies have demonstrated that care pathways administered within the ED can reduce health disparities, but this has yet to be studied as a strategy to increase stress testing equity. Methods A secondary analysis from 3 randomized clinical trials involving ED patients with acute chest pain was performed to determine whether a care pathway, ACES (Accelerated Chest pain Evaluation with Stress imaging), reduces the racial disparity in index visit cardiac testing between African American (AA) and White patients. Three hundred thirty-four participants with symptoms and findings indicating intermediate to high risk for acute coronary syndrome were enrolled in 3 clinical trials. Major exclusions were ST-segment elevation, initial troponin elevation, and hemodynamic instability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual inpatient care, or ACES. The ACES care pathway includes placement in observation for serial cardiac markers, with an expectation for stress imaging. The primary outcome was index visit objective cardiac testing, compared among AA and White participants. Results AA participants represented 111/329 (34%) of the study population, 80/220 (36%) of the ACES group and 31/109 (28%) of the usual care group. In usual care, objective testing occurred less frequently among AA (22/31, 71%) than among White (69/78, 88%, P = 0.027) participants, primarily driven by cardiac catheterization (3% vs. 24%; P = 0.012). In ACES, testing rates did not differ by race [AA 78/80 (98%) vs. White 138/140 (99%); P = 0.623]. At 90 days, death, MI, and revascularization did not differ in either group between AA and White participants. Conclusions A care pathway with the expectation for stress imaging eliminates the racial disparity among AA and White participants with chest pain in the acquisition of index-visit cardiovascular testing.

Background The objective of this study was to quantify the sensitivity of very low concentrations of high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) at ED arrival for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a large cohort of chest pain patients evaluated in real‐world clinical practice. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive ED patients with suspected cardiac chest pain evaluated in four urban EDs, excluding those with ST‐elevation AMI, cardiac arrest or abnormal kidney function. The primary outcomes were AMI at 7, 30, and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE; all‐cause mortality, AMI, and revascularization) and the individual MACE components. Test characteristics were calculated for hsTnT values from 3 to 200 ng/L . Results A total of 7,130 patients met inclusion criteria. AMI incidences at 7, 30, and 90 days were 5.8, 6.0, and 6.2%. When the hsTnT assay was performed at ED arrival, the limit of blank of the assay (3 ng/L) ruled out 7‐day AMI in 15.5% of patients with 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV). The limit of detection of the assay (5 ng/L) ruled out AMI in 33.6% of patients with 99.8% sensitivity and 99.95% NPV for 7‐day AMI. The limit of quantification (the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]‐approved cutoff for lower the reportable limit) of 6 ng/L ruled out AMI in 42.2% of patients with 99.8% sensitivity and 99.95% NPV. The sensitivities of the cutoffs of

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.

Background Animal studies suggest that monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) is a promising biomarker for coronary artery atherosclerosis (CAA), but human studies have been inconclusive. Objective To determine potential relationships between plasma MCP-1 and CAA in patients with acute chest pain. Methods A secondary analysis of 150 patients enrolled in emergency department chest pain risk stratification clinical investigations was conducted. Participants with stored blood and known coronary phenotypes (determined by coronary angiography) were selected using stratified randomization such that 50 patients were included into 3 groups: (1) no angiographic evidence of CAA, (2) nonobstructive CAA, and (3) obstructive CAA (stenosis ≥ 70%). Plasma MCP-1 levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The association between MCP-1 and obstructive CAA or any CAA was modeled using logistic regression. Variables in the unreduced model included age, sex, race, prior diagnosis of CAA or acute coronary syndrome, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and cardiac troponin I measurement. Results Among the 150 participants, 65.3% (98/150) had invasive coronary angiography and 34.7% (52/150) had coronary computed tomographic angiography. Myocardial infarction occurred in 27.3% (41/150) and coronary revascularization occurred in 26% (39/150) of the participants. Each 10 pg/mL increase in MCP-1 measurement was associated with an odds ratio of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.19) for obstructive CAA. MCP-1 remained a significant predictor of obstructive CAA and any CAA after adjustment for age, sex, race, traditional cardiac risk factors, and cardiac troponin I. Conclusions MCP-1 is independently associated with CAA among emergency department patients with chest pain.

An initial electrocardiogram (ECG) and serial troponin measurements are both independently and incrementally predictive of acute coronary syndrome in patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain in the Emergency Department (ED). However, it is unclear if serial (ECGs) add significant to the contemporary diagnostic evaluation of this patient group. The ASAP CATH study was a single center, prospective study that enrolled patients presenting to an ED with undifferentiated chest pain. In addition to standard clinical evaluation, serial ECGs were performed at 90-minute intervals to evaluate whether serial changes suggestive of ischemia developed (Q waves, ST elevation or depression, or T-wave inversion). Total 365 subjects were enrolled from March 2014 to May 2015. Serial ECG changes developed in 6.6% (n = 24 of 365), the most common being the development of T-wave inversion (66.7%, n = 16 of 24). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of serial ECG changes were poor (30%), with a less areas under the curve (0.55) compared with serial troponins alone (0.83). The addition of serial ECG changes to Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk scoring showed a decrease in the net reclassification index for major adverse cardiovascular events (-0.04, p0.1) and was not significant for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events and/or acute coronary syndrome in 30 days (-0.003, p = 0.94). In conclusion, routine serial ECG evaluation for patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain in the ED may not significantly improved diagnostic prognosis beyond current standard evaluation modalities.

IntroductionThe History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score is a decision aid designed to risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain. It has been validated for ED use, but it has yet to be evaluated in a prehospital setting.HypothesisA prehospital modified HEART score can predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among undifferentiated chest pain patients transported to the ED.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain transported by two county-based Emergency Medical Service (EMS) agencies to a tertiary care center was conducted. Adults without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included. Inter-facility transfers and those without a prehospital 12-lead ECG or an ED troponin measurement were excluded. Modified HEART scores were calculated by study investigators using a standardized data collection tool for each patient. All MACE (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or coronary revascularization) were determined by record review at 30 days. The sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) for MACE at 30 days were calculated.ResultsOver the study period, 794 patients met inclusion criteria. A MACE at 30 days was present in 10.7% (85/794) of patients with 12 deaths (1.5%), 66 MIs (8.3%), and 12 coronary revascularizations without MI (1.5%). The modified HEART score identified 33.2% (264/794) of patients as low risk. Among low-risk patients, 1.9% (5/264) had MACE (two MIs and three revascularizations without MI). The sensitivity and NPV for 30-day MACE was 94.1% (95% CI, 86.8-98.1) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6-99.4), respectively.ConclusionsPrehospital modified HEART scores have a high NPV for MACE at 30 days. A study in which prehospital providers prospectively apply this decision aid is warranted.StopyraJP, HarperWS, HigginsTJ, ProkesovaJV, WinslowJE, NelsonRD, AlsonRL, DavisCA, RussellGB, MillerCD, MahlerSA. Prehospital modified HEART score predictive of 30-day adverse cardiac events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):58–62.

Approximately 8 to 10 million patients complaining of chest pain present to emergency departments (EDs) annually in the United States.1 In an attempt to avoid missing the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), emergency physicians use liberal testing strategies in patients with acute chest pain. This results in more than 50% of ED patients with acute chest pain receiving comprehensive cardiac evaluations (serial cardiac biomarkers and stress testing or angiography) at an estimated cost of $10 to $13 billion annually,2–6 yet fewer than 10% of these patients are ultimately diagnosed with ACS.6–10 Current care patterns for patients with acute chest pain fail to focus health system resources on patients likely to benefit. Among low-risk patients who have ACS rates as low as 2%, stress testing and cardiac imaging is associated with a substantial number of false-positive and nondiagnostic tests, which leads to additional unnecessary and often invasive procedures.11 Consensus among health system leaders, clinicians, and educators is building regarding the need to more efficiently evaluate patients with acute chest pain.12 The 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADAPT),13,14 which combines 0- and 2-hour cardiac troponin (cTn) tests, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and an adapted Thombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score, is a recently developed decision rule designed to identify ED patients safe for early discharge. Previous studies in the Asia-Pacific region have demonstrated that ADAPT can classify 20% of patients with acute chest pain for early discharge while simultaneously achieving high sensitivity (97.9% to 99.7%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days.13,15 Based on these studies, many believe that ADAPT has the potential to more efficiently focus inpatient resources and objective cardiac testing (stress testing or angiography) on patients likely to benefit. However, the performance of ADAPT within a cohort of US ED patients has yet to be examined. We designed a secondary data analysis of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) PA 4005 cohort to determine the validity of ADAPT in a group of U.S. ED patients with suspected ACS. Specifically we sought to determine if ADAPT can classify 20% or more patients with acute chest pain as safe for early discharge while maintaining high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for MACE. While the precise value of an acceptable sensitivity and NPV for MACE is a matter of considerable debate, many believe that a successful chest pain risk stratification strategy must achieve >99% NPV (corresponding with a < 1% missed MACE rate among patients with a low-risk assessment) and approach a 99% sensitivity.16

Skin related complaints are a top 10 reason for pediatric presentation to the ED. Older studies and those conducted outside of the US demonstrate wide variability in the frequency of pediatric presentations to the ED for skin complaints, ranging from 4-40% of visits.1 One study found urticaria to be the most frequent PED dermatological diagnosis, while others found viral exanthema and contact dermatitis to be the most common diagnoses. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) crowding negatively impacts patient care quality and efficiency. To reduce crowding many EDs use a physician-in-triage (PIT) process. However, few studies have evaluated the effect of a PIT processes on resident education. Our objective was to determine the impact of a PIT process implementation on resident education within the ED of an academic medical center. Methods: We performed a prospective cross-sectional study for a 10-week period from March to June 2011, during operationally historic trended peak patient volume and arrival periods. Emergency medicine residents (three-year program) and faculty, blinded to the research objectives, were asked to evaluate the educational quality of each shift using a 5-point Likert scale. Residents and faculty also completed a questionnaire at the end of the study period assessing the perceived impact of the PIT process on resident education, patient care, satisfaction, and throughput. We compared resident and attending data using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: During the study period, 54 residents and attendings worked clinically during the PIT process with 78% completing questionnaires related to the study. Attendings and residents indicated “no impact” of the PIT process on resident education [median Likert score of 3.0, inter-quartile range (IQR): 2-4]. There was no difference in attending and resident perceptions (p-value =0.18). Both groups perceived patient satisfaction to be “positively impacted” [4.0, IQR:2-4 for attendings vs 4.0,IQR:1-5 for residents, p-value =0.75]. Residents perceived more improvement in patient throughput to than attendings [3.5, IQR:3-4 for attendings vs 4.0, IQR:3-5 for residents, p-value =0.006]. Perceived impact on differential diagnosis generation was negative in both groups [2.0, IQR:1-3 vs 2.5, IQR:1-5, p-value = 0.42]. The impact of PIT on selection of diagnostic studies and medical decision making was negative for attendings and neutral for residents: [(2.0, IQR:1-3 vs 3.0,IQR:1-4, p-value =0.10) and (2.0, IQR:1-4 vs 3.0, IQR:1-5, p-value =0.14 respectively]. Conclusion: Implementation of a PIT process at an academic medical center was not associated with a negative (or positive) perceived impact on resident education. However, attendings and residents felt that differential diagnosis development was negatively impacted. Attendings also felt diagnostic test selection and medical decision-making learning were negatively impacted by the PIT process. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(7):–0.]

On virtually every shift, Emergency Department providers care for patients with chest pain. With each encounter, the provider has the difficult task of determining if the patient’s pain is of cardiac or non-cardiac origin. This is a high-stakes decision, as patients discharged with an incorrect diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain are at high risk for morbidity and mortality, while the provider is at high risk for a medical malpractice claim (Pope et al., N Engl J Med 342(16):1163–1170, 2000; Amsterdam et al., Circulation 122(17):1756–1776, 2010). Diagnostic imaging studies, such as coronary computed tomography angiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, stress echocardiography, and nuclear imaging, play an important role in the risk stratification of patients presenting with chest pain or other symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This article will evaluate and summarize the recent evidence relevant to diagnostic imaging modalities used to exclude ACS.

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.

© 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Background: Current guidelines suggest a "door-in-door-out" (DIDO) time of 30 minutes or shorter for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who arrive at a STEMI referral hospital and are transferred to a STEMI-receiving center for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Experts previously identifed 18 system practices as critical for reducing DIDO times. The objective of this study was to describe how frequently these critical practices are used and to determine whether their use was associated with shorter DIDO times. Methods: We surveyed 18 STEMI referral hospitals for 4 STEMI-receiving centers regarding their use of these 18 practices. The median number used was 14 practices (interquartile range 12-15). We then evaluated their association with DIDO times in all patients (n = 93) transferred from these STEMI referral hospitals to the 4 STEMI-receiving centers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Results: In univariate linear regression analyses, system-wide quality improvement programs with leaders in the emergency medical services agencies and STEMI referral hospitals were associated with shorter DIDO times (P < 0.001 for all). Overall use of system practices was not associated with DIDO times (P = 0.143). The majority (76%, 95% confdence interval: 66%-85%) of DIDO times did not meet the 30-minute goal. Conclusions: These fndings highlight the diffculty in achieving the 30-minute DIDO goal and the need for continued focus on strategies for reducing DIDO time, including system-wide quality improvement programs.

Chest pain is a common complaint in the emergency department, and a small but important minority represents an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Variation in diagnostic workup, risk stratification, and management may result in underuse, misuse, and/or overuse of resources.From July to October 2014, we conducted a prospective cohort study in an academic medical center by implementing a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP) for chest pain based on the HEART score. In addition to capturing adherence to the SCAMP algorithm and reasons for any deviations, we measured troponin sample timing; rates of stress test utilization; length of stay (LOS); and 30-day rates of revascularization, ACS, and death.We identified 239 patients during the enrollment period who were eligible to enter the SCAMP, of whom 97 patients were entered into the pathway. Patients were risk stratified into one of 3 risk tiers: high (n = 3), intermediate (n = 40), and low (n = 54). Among low-risk patients, recommendations for troponin testing were not followed in 56%, and 11% received stress tests contrary to the SCAMP recommendation. None of the low-risk patients had elevated troponin measurements, and none had an abnormal stress test. Mean LOS in low-risk patients managed with discordant plans was 22:26 h/min, compared with 9:13 h/min in concordant patients (P0.001). Mean LOS in intermediate-risk patients with stress testing was 25:53 h/min, compared with 7:55 h/min for those without (P0.001). At 30 days, 10% of intermediate-risk patients and 0% of low-risk patients experienced an ACS event (risk difference 10% [0.7%-19%]); none experienced revascularization or death. The most frequently cited reason for deviation from the SCAMP was lack of confidence in the tool.Compliance with SCAMP recommendations for low- and intermediate-risk patients was poor, largely due to lack of confidence in the tool. However, in our study population, outcomes suggest that deviation from the SCAMP yielded no additional clinical benefit while significantly prolonging emergency department LOS.

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.

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 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.

Background Most patients presenting to US Emergency Departments (ED) with chest pain are hospitalized for comprehensive testing. These evaluations cost the US health system >$10 billion annually, but have a diagnostic yield for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) of 5000 patient encounters. The HEART Pathway has been fully integrated into health system electronic medical records, providing real-time decision support to our providers. Conclusions We hypothesize that the HEART Pathway will safely reduce healthcare utilization. This study could provide a model for delivering high-value care to the 8-10 million US ED patients with acute chest pain each year. ClinicalTrial Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02056964; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02056964 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ccajsgyu)

Background Graduates of Emergency Medicine (EM) residency training programs are expected to be proficient in ultrasound. However, best practices for teaching residents ultrasonography has yet to be determined. Study Objectives To determine if a dedicated Emergency Department (ED) ultrasound rotation objectively improves residents’ EM ultrasound knowledge, interpretation accuracy, and clinical decision-making based on ultrasound findings. Methods EM residents completing a required ED-based ultrasound rotation were prospectively studied. Before the start of the rotation, each resident completed a 20-question pre-test. At the end of the rotation, residents completed a 20-question post-test. Both tests covered physics, trauma (focused assessment with sonography for trauma), first-trimester pregnancy, aorta, biliary, echocardiography, and vascular sonography, using a multiple-choice format. In both tests, ultrasound images were included in 11 of the 20 questions. The questions were divided into three categories: knowledge-based (8 questions), interpretation (9 questions), and clinical decision-making (3 questions), for both tests. Scores on pre-tests and post-tests were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results During the 2-year study period, 21 residents completed the rotation. The median pre-test score was 16 (interquartile range [IQR] 14.5–17), compared to a median post-test score of 19 (IQR 18–20), p Conclusions A dedicated ED ultrasound rotation improves residents’ EM ultrasound knowledge and interpretation accuracy based on ultrasound findings, as measured by improvement on ultrasound test scores.

Background Few studies have evaluated the effect of Emergency Department (ED) overcrowding on resident education. Objectives To determine the impact of ED overcrowding on Emergency Medicine (EM) resident education. Materials and Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was performed from March to May 2009. Second- and third-year EM residents, blinded to the research objective, completed a questionnaire at the end of each shift. Residents were asked to evaluate the educational quality of each shift using a 10-point Likert scale. Number of patients seen and procedures completed were recorded. Responses were divided into ED overcrowding (group O) and non-ED overcrowding (group N) groups. ED overcrowding was defined as >2 h of ambulance diversion per shift. Questionnaire responses were compared using Mann–Whitney U tests. Number of patients and procedures were compared using unpaired T-tests. Results During the study period, 125 questionnaires were completed; 54 in group O and 71 in group N. For group O, the median educational value score was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 7–10), compared to 8 (IQR 8–10) for group N ( p = 0.24). Mean number of patients seen in group O was 12.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.4–13.2), compared to 13.9 (95% CI 12.7–15) in group N ( p = 0.034). In group O, mean number of procedures was 0.9 (95% CI 0.6–1.2), compared to 1.3 (95% CI 1–1.6) in group N ( p = 0.047). Conclusions During overcrowding, EM residents saw fewer patients and performed fewer procedures. However, there was no significant difference in resident perception of educational value during times of overcrowding vs. non-overcrowding.

Background Patients with low risk chest pain have high utilization of stress testing and cardiac imaging, but low rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of this study was to determine if the HEART score could safely reduce objective cardiac testing in patients with low risk chest pain.

Introduction: Vascular pedicle width (VPW), a measurement obtained from a chest radiograph (CR), is thought to be an indicator of circulating blood volume. To date there are only a handful of studies that demonstrate a correlation between high VPW and volume overload, each utilizing different VPW values and CR techniques. Our objective was to determine a mean VPW measurement from erect and supine CRs and to determine whether VPW correlates with volume overload. Methods: MEDLINE database, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched electronically for relevant articles. References from the original and review publications selected electronically were manually searched for additional relevant articles. Two investigators independently reviewed relevant articles for inclusion criteria and data extraction. Mean VPW measurements from both supine and erect CRs and their correlation with volume overload were calculated. Results: Data from 8 studies with a total of 363 subjects were included, resulting in mean VPW measurements of 71 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 64.9–77.3) and 62 mm (95% CI 49.3–75.1) for supine and erect CRs, respectively. The correlation coefficients for volume overload and VPW were 0.81 (95% CI 0.74–0.86) for both CR techniques and 0.81 (95% CI 0.72–0.87) for supine CR and 0.80 (95% CI 0.69–0.87) for erect CR, respectively. Conclusion: There is a clinical and statistical correlation between VPW and volume overload. VPW may be used to evaluate the volume status of a patient regardless of the CR technique used. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(4):426–432.]

Background: The utility of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access (USGPIV) has been well described. However, few studies have investigated USGPIV techniques. Objectives: To describe a modified Seldinger technique for USGPIV. Methods: Emergency Department patients with difficult i.v. access (three or more failed landmark attempts) were prospectively enrolled. USGPIV was attempted using modified Seldinger technique. A 20-gauge, 3.81-cm catheter with integral wire was used for all procedures. The basilic vein was identified using a high-frequency linear probe (5–10 MHz). The needle was inserted into the vein with dynamic guidance in short axis, and the cannula was advanced over a wire. Time from skin puncture to catheter insertion, number of needle sticks, and overall procedure time were recorded. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled and underwent USGPIV; success rate was 96% (24/25). The mean number of needle sticks was 1.32 (95% confidence interval 1.12–1.52). Median time from skin to catheter insertion was 68 s (± SD 70.5 s). Median total procedure time was 7 min (420 s) (± SD 5.23 min). Conclusions: Modified Seldinger technique is an effective method of USGPIV and is worthy of a prospective comparison with non-Seldinger technique.

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.

Objective: To examine the isolated and combined effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and partial liquid ventilation (PLV) on the development of ventilator-induced lung injury in an ovine model. Design: Prospective controlled animal study. Setting: University-based cardiovascular animal physiology laboratory. Subjects: Thirty-eight anesthetized supine sheep weighing 22.3 ± 2.2 kg. Interventions: Animals were ventilated for 6 hrs (respiratory rate, 15; FIO 2 , 1.0, inspiratory/expiratory ratio, 1:1) with one of five pressure-controlled strategies, expressed as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP)/PEEP: low-PIP, 25/5 cm H 2 O (n = 8); high-PIP, 50/5 cm H 2 O (n = 8); high-PIP-PLV, 50/5 cm H 2 O-PLV (n = 8); high-PEEP, 50/20 cm H 2 O (n = 7); and high-PEEP-PLV, 50/20 cm H 2 O-PLV (n = 7). Measurements and Main Results: Compared with the low-PIP control, high-PIP ventilation increased airleak, shunt, histologic evidence of lung injury, neutrophil infiltrates, and wet lung weight. Maintaining PEEP at 20 cm H 2 O or adding PLV reduced the development of physiologic shunt and dependent histologic injury indexes. Neither higher PEEP nor PLV reduced the high incidence of barotrauma observed in high-PIP animals. Conclusions: We conclude that application of PLV or PEEP at 20 cm H 2 O may improve gas exchange and afford lung protection from ventilator-induced lung injury during high-pressure mechanical ventilation in this model.