Search

Background: The objective of this study is to identify patient and EMS agency factors associated with timely reperfusion of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years old) with STEMI activations from 2016 to 2020. Data was obtained from a regional STEMI registry, which included eight rural county EMS agencies and three North Carolina percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers. On each patient, prehospital and in-hospital time intervals were abstracted. The primary outcome was the ability to achieve the 90-minute EMS FMC to PCI time goal (yes vs. no). We used generalized estimating equations accounting for within-agency clustering to evaluate the association between patient and agency factors and meeting first medical contact (FMC) to PCI time goal while accounting for clustering within the agency., Results: Among 365 rural STEMI patients 30.1% were female (110/365) with a mean age of 62.5 ± 12.7 years. PCI was performed within the time goal in 60.5% (221/365) of encounters. The FMC to PCI time goal was met in 45.5% (50/110) of women vs 69.8% (178/255) of men ( p  < 0.001). The median PCI center activation time was 12 min (IQR 7-19) in the group that received PCI within the time goal compared to 21 min (IQR 10-37) in the cohort that did not. After adjusting for loaded mileage and other clinical variables (e.g., pulse rate, hypertension etc.), the male sex was associated with an improved chance of meeting the goal of FMC to PCI (aOR: 2.94; 95% CI 2.11-4.10) compared to the female sex., Conclusion: Nearly 40% of rural STEMI patients transported by EMS failed to receive FMC to PCI within 90 min. Women were less likely than men to receive reperfusion within the time goal, which represents an important health care disparity.

Background: Emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians demonstrate a high prevalence of chronic medical conditions that place them at risk for early mortality. Workplace health promotion programs improve health outcomes, but the availably of such programs for EMS clinicians has not been described. We investigate the availability, scope, and participation of workplace health promotion programs available to EMS clinicians in North Carolina (NC)., Methods: We administered an electronic survey based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Worksite Health ScoreCard to key representatives of EMS agencies within NC that provide primarily transport-capable 9-1-1 response with ground ambulances. We collected information on agency size, rurality, elements of health promotion programs offered, incentives for participation, and participation rate. We calculated descriptive statistics using frequency and percentage for worksite and health promotion program characteristics. We compared the participation rate for agencies who did and did not incentivize participation using Fisher's exact test., Results: Complete responses were received from 69 of 92 agencies (response = 75%) that collectively employ 6679 EMS clinicians [median employees per agency 71 (IQR 50-131)]. Most agencies (88.4%, 61/69) offered at least one element of a worksite health program, but only 13.0% (9/69) offered all elements of a worksite health program. In descending order, the availability of program elements were employee assistance programs (73.9%, 51/69), supportive physical and social environment (66.7%, 46/69), health education (62.3%, 43/69), health risk assessments (52.2%, 36/69), and organization culture of health promotion (20.3%, 14/69). Of agencies with programs, few (11.5%, 7/61) required participation, but most (59.0%, 36/61) offered incentives to participate. Participation rates were <25% among nearly all of the agencies that did not offer incentives, but >50% among most agencies that did offer incentives ( p  < 0.001)., Conclusion: While most agencies offer at least one element of a worksite health promotion program, few agencies offer all elements and participation rates are low.

Background: Cardiac arrest guidelines recommend epinephrine every 3-5 minutes during cardiac arrest resuscitation. However, it is unclear if multiple epinephrine doses are associated with improved outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine if a single-dose epinephrine protocol was associated with improved survival compared to traditional multidose protocols., Methods: We conducted a pre-post study across five North Carolina EMS agencies from 11/1/2016 to 10/29/2019. Patients ≥18 years old with attempted resuscitation for non-traumatic prehospital cardiac arrest were included. Data were collected 1 year before and after implementation of the single-dose epinephrine protocol. Prior to implementation, all agencies used a multidose epinephrine protocol. The Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) was used to obtain patient outcomes. Study outcomes were survival to hospital discharge (primary) and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcomes were compared pre- vs. post-implementation using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering within EMS agencies. Adjusted analyses included age, sex, race, shockable vs. non-shockable rhythm, witnessed arrest, automatic external defibrillator availability, EMS response interval, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation., Results: During the study period there were 1,690 encounters (899 pre- and 791 post-implementation). The population was 74.7% white, 61.1% male, and had a median age of 65 (IQR 53-76) years. Survival to hospital discharge was similar pre- vs. post-implementation [13.6% (122/899) vs. 15.4% (122/791); OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.89-1.59]. However, ROSC was more common post-implementation [42.3% (380/899) vs. 32.5% (257/791); OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54-0.81]. After adjusting for covariates, the single-dose protocol was associated with similar survival to discharge rates (aOR 0.88, 95%CI 0.77-1.29), but with decreased ROSC rates (aOR 0.58, 95%CI 0.47-0.72)., Conclusion: A prehospital single-dose epinephrine protocol was associated with similar survival to hospital discharge, but decreased ROSC rates compared to the traditional multidose epinephrine protocol.

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 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 <1%., Methods: A 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)., Results: Providers completed HEAR assessments on 4979 patients and HEAR scores<1 occurred in 9.0% (447/4979) of patients. Among these patients, MACE at 30 days occurred in 0.9% (4/447; 95% CI 0.2% to 2.3%) with two deaths, two MIs and 0 revascularisations. The sensitivity and negative predictive value for MACE in the HEAR < 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%)., Conclusion: These 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 <1%. Trial registration number NCT02056964., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SAM receives research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Point of Care, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Creavo Medical Technologies, PCORI, AHRQ and NHLBI (1 R01 HL11826301). He is a consultant for Roche Diagnostics and Amgen. SAM is the chief medical officer for Impathiq. JPS receives research funding from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Point of Care. LS receives research funding from Forest Devices and the NHLBI (1 R01 HL144624-01). CDM receives research funding from Abbott, Siemens, NHLBI 118263, Creavo Medical Technologies., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The 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., Methods: The 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., Results: 5799 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 (p<0.001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.9%) of patients classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway compared with 1.0% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.5%) of patients identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Thus, the HEART Pathway had a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.8%) for major adverse cardiac events compared with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.3%) for EDACS., Conclusions: EDACS 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 Number: NCT02056964., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SM also receives research funding/support from Abbott Point of Care, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens, PCORI and NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01, L30 HL120008). SM is the Chief Medical Officer for Impathiq Inc. JS receives research funding/support from Abbott Point of Care, Roche Diagnostics and and NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01). CM receives research funding/support from Siemens, Abbott Point of Care and 1 R01 HL118263. ACS receives research funding from NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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: The HEART Pathway is a decision aid designed to identify emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. No randomized trials have compared the HEART Pathway with usual care., Methods and Results: Adult emergency department patients with symptoms related to acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on ECG (n=282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, emergency department providers used the HEART score, a validated decision aid, and troponin measures at 0 and 3 hours to identify patients for early discharge. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary outcome, objective cardiac testing (stress testing or angiography), and secondary outcomes, index length of stay, early discharge, and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), were assessed at 30 days by phone interview and record review. Participants had a mean age of 53 years, 16% had previous myocardial infarction, and 6% (95% confidence interval, 3.6%-9.5%) had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of randomization. Compared with usual care, use of the HEART Pathway decreased objective cardiac testing at 30 days by 12.1% (68.8% versus 56.7%; P=0.048) and length of stay by 12 hours (9.9 versus 21.9 hours; P=0.013) and increased early discharges by 21.3% (39.7% versus 18.4%; P<0.001). No patients identified for early discharge had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days., Conclusions: The HEART Pathway reduces objective cardiac testing during 30 days, shortens length of stay, and increases early discharges. These important efficiency gains occurred without any patients identified for early discharge suffering MACE at 30 days., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01665521., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in an observation unit (OU) on revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing in intermediate-risk patients with possible acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Background: Intermediate-risk patients commonly undergo hospital admission with high rates of coronary revascularization. It is unknown whether OU-based care with CMR is a more efficient alternative., Methods: A total of 105 intermediate-risk participants with symptoms of ACS but without definite ACS on the basis of the first electrocardiogram and troponin were randomized to usual care provided by cardiologists and internists (n = 53) or to OU care with stress CMR (n = 52). The primary composite endpoint of coronary artery revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing at 90 days was determined. The secondary endpoint was length of stay from randomization to index visit discharge; safety was measured as ACS after discharge., Results: The median age of participants was 56 years (range 35 to 91 years), 54% were men, and 20% had pre-existing coronary disease. Index hospital admission was avoided in 85% of the OU CMR participants. The primary outcome occurred in 20 usual care participants (38%) versus 7 OU CMR participants (13%) (hazard ratio: 3.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 8.0, p = 0.006). The OU CMR group experienced significant reductions in all components: revascularizations (15% vs. 2%, p = 0.03), hospital readmissions (23% vs. 8%, p = 0.03), and recurrent cardiac testing (17% vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Median length of stay was 26 h (interquartile range: 23 to 45 h) in the usual care group and 21 h (interquartile range: 15 to 25 h) in the OU CMR group (p < 0.001). ACS after discharge occurred in 3 usual care participants (6%) and no OU CMR participants., Conclusions: In this single-center trial, management of intermediate-risk patients with possible ACS in an OU with stress CMR reduced coronary artery revascularization, hospital readmissions, and recurrent cardiac testing, without an increase in post-discharge ACS at 90 days. (Randomized Investigation of Chest Pain Diagnostic Strategies; NCT01035047)., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)