Search

Background: The BinaxNOW coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Ag Card test (Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.) is a lateral flow immunochromatographic point-of-care test for the qualitative detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein antigen. It provides results from nasal swabs in 15 minutes. Our purpose was to determine its sensitivity and specificity for a COVID-19 diagnosis., Methods: Eligible patients had symptoms of COVID-19 or suspected exposure. After consent, 2 nasal swabs were collected; 1 was tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ie, the gold standard polymerase chain reaction test) and the second run on the BinaxNOW point of care platform by emergency department staff., Results: From July 20 to October 28, 2020, 767 patients were enrolled, of which 735 had evaluable samples. Their mean (SD) age was 46.8 (16.6) years, and 422 (57.4%) were women. A total of 623 (84.8%) patients had COVID-19 symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath ( n  = 404; 55.0%), cough ( n  = 314; 42.7%), and fever ( n  = 253; 34.4%). Although 460 (62.6%) had symptoms ≤7 days, the mean (SD) time since symptom onset was 8.1 (14.0) days. Positive tests occurred in 173 (23.5%) and 141 (19.2%) with the gold standard versus BinaxNOW test, respectively. Those with symptoms >2 weeks had a positive test rate roughly half of those with earlier presentations. In patients with symptoms ≤7 days, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values for the BinaxNOW test were 84.6%, 98.5%, 94.9%, and 95.2%, respectively., Conclusions: The BinaxNOW point-of-care test has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of COVID-19. We recommend using the BinasNOW for patients with symptoms up to 2 weeks., Competing Interests: Each author's institution received financial support for the performance of the study., (© 2022 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians.)

Acute chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint. Evaluating patients for acute coronary syndrome is challenging because missing the diagnosis carries substantial morbidity, mortality, and medicolegal consequences. However, over-testing is associated with increased cost, overcrowding, and possible iatrogenic harm. Over the past two decades, multiple risk scoring systems have been developed to help emergency providers evaluate patients with acute chest pain. The ideal risk score balances safety by achieving high sensitivity and negative predictive value for major adverse cardiovascular events while also being effective in identifying a large proportion of patients for early discharge from the ED. This review examines contemporary risk scores used to risk stratify patients with acute chest pain., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Stopyra receives research funding from NCATS/NIH (KL2TR001421), HRSA (H2ARH39976-01-00), NHLBI (U01HL123027), Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Point of Care. He has provided paid consulting to Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Snavely receives research funding from NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01) and HRSA (1 H2ARH399760100). Dr. Miller receives research funding/support from Siemens, Abbott Point of Care, Creavo Medical Technologies, Marcus Foundation, RTI International, Grifols, and NHLBI1 R01 HL118263. Dr. Mahler receives research funding from the Donaghue Foundation, Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Creavo Medical Technologies, PCORI, AHRQ, NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01) and HRSA (1 H2ARH399760100). He was a paid consultant for Roche Diagnostics and Amgen. Dr. Mahler is the Chief Medical Officer for Impathiq Inc., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The HEART Pathway identifies low-risk chest pain patients for discharge from the Emergency Department without stress testing. However, HEART Pathway recommendations are not always followed. The objective of this study is to determine the frequency and diagnostic yield of stress testing among low-risk patients., Methods: An academic hospital's chest pain registry was analyzed for low-risk HEART Pathway patients (HEAR score ≤ 3 with non-elevated troponins) from 1/2017 to 7/2018. Stress tests were reviewed for inducible ischemia. Diagnostic yield was defined as the rate of obstructive CAD among patients with positive stress testing. T-test or Fisher's exact test was used to test the univariate association of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and HEAR score with stress testing. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and HEAR score with stress testing., Results: There were 4743 HEART Pathway assessments, with 43.7% (2074/4743) being low-risk. Stress testing was performed on 4.1% (84/2074). Of the 84 low-risk patients who underwent testing, 8.3% (7/84) had non-diagnostic studies and 2.6% (2/84) had positive studies. Among the 2 patients with positive studies, angiography revealed that 1 had widely patent coronary arteries and the other had multivessel obstructive coronary artery disease, making the diagnostic yield of stress testing 1.2% (1/84). Each one-point increase in HEAR score (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.45-3.24) and being male (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02-2.49) were associated with testing., Conclusions: Stress testing among low-risk HEART Pathway patients was uncommon, low yield, and more likely in males and those with a higher HEAR score., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: European data support the use of low high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) measurements or a 0/1-hour (0/1-h) algorithm for myocardial infarction to exclude major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) among patients in the emergency department with possible acute coronary syndrome. However, modest US data exist to validate these strategies. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an initial hs-cTnT measure below the limit of quantification (LOQ: 6 ng/L), a 0/1-h algorithm, and their combination with history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin (HEART) scores for excluding MACE in a multisite US cohort., Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at 8 US sites, enrolling adult patients in the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome and without ST-elevation on ECG. Baseline and 1-hour blood samples were collected, and hs-cTnT (Roche; Basel, Switzerland) was measured. Treating providers blinded to hs-cTnT results prospectively calculated HEART scores. MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization) at 30 days was adjudicated. The proportion of patients with initial hs-cTnT measures below the LOQ and risk according to a 0/1-h algorithm was determined. The negative predictive value (NPV) was calculated for both strategies when used alone or with a HEART score., Results: Among 1462 participants with initial hs-cTnT measures, 46.4% (678 of 1462) were women and 37.1% (542 of 1462) were Black with an age of 57.6±12.9 (mean±SD) years. MACEs at 30 days occurred in 14.4% (210 of 1462) of participants. Initial hs-cTnT measures below the LOQ occurred in 32.8% (479 of 1462), yielding an NPV of 98.3% (95% CI, 96.7-99.3) for 30-day MACEs. A low-risk HEART score with an initial hs-cTnT below the LOQ occurred in 20.1% (294 of 1462), yielding an NPV of 99.0% (95% CI, 97.0-99.8) for 30-day MACEs. A 0/1-h algorithm was complete in 1430 patients, ruling out 57.8% (826 of 1430) with an NPV of 97.2% (95% CI, 95.9-98.2) for 30-day MACEs. Adding a low HEART score to the 0/1-h algorithm ruled out 30.8% (441 of 1430) with an NPV of 98.4% (95% CI, 96.8-99.4) for 30-day MACEs., Conclusions: In a prospective multisite US cohort, an initial hs-cTnT below the LOQ combined with a low-risk HEART score has a 99% NPV for 30-day MACEs. The 0/1-h hs-cTnT algorithm did not achieve an NPV >99% for 30-day MACEs when used alone or with a HEART score. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02984436.

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., Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04488913., (© 2021 The Authors.)

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.)

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 ambulance transport, are limited. The objective of this study was to prospectively test the performance of POC cTn measurement by paramedics to detect myocardial infarction (MI) among patients transported to the ED for acute chest pain. Methods: A prospective cohort study of adults with non-traumatic chest pain was conducted in three Emergency Medical Services agencies (December 2016 to January 2018). Patients with ST-elevation MI on ECG were excluded. During ambulance transport paramedics initiated intravenous access, collected blood, and used a POC device (i-STAT; Abbott Laboratories) to measure cTn. Following ED arrival, participants received standard evaluations including clinical blood draws for cTn measurement in the hospital central lab (AccuTnI +3 assay; Beckman Coulter, or cTnI-Ultra assay; Siemens). Blood collected during ambulance transport was also analyzed for cTn in the central lab. Index visit MI was adjudicated by 3 experts using central lab cTn measures from the patient's clinical blood draws. Test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) for detection of MI were calculated for POC and central lab cTn measurement of prehospital blood and compared with McNemar's test. Results: During the study period prehospital POC cTn results were obtained on 421 patients, of which 5.0% (21/421) had results >99th percentile upper reference limit. MI was adjudicated in 16.2% (68/421) during the index visit. The specificity and positive predictive value of the POC cTn measurement were 99.2% (95% CI 97.5-99.8%) and 85.7% (95% CI 63.7-97.0%) for MI. However, the sensitivity and NPV of prehospital POC cTn were 26.5% (95% CI 16.5-38.6%) and 87.5% (95% CI 83.9-90.6%). Compared to POC cTn, the central lab cTn measurement of prehospital blood resulted in a higher sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 53.7-80.1%, p  < 0.0001), but lower specificity of 92.4% (95% CI 88.4-95.4%, p  = 0.0001). Conclusions: Prehospital POC i-STAT cTn measurement in patients transported with acute chest pain was highly specific for MI but had low sensitivity. This suggests that prehospital i-STAT POC cTn could be useful to rule-in MI, but should not be used to exclude MI.

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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02709135)., Competing Interests: Abbott Point of Care provided a research grant to support the work presented in this manuscript. Dr. Stopyra received research funding from Abbott Point of Care and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mahler receives additional research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Siemens, Creavo Medical Technologies, the Donaghue Foundation, AHRQ, PCORI, and NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01, L30 HL120008). Dr. Mahler also serves as the chief medical officer of Impathiq, Inc. Dr. Miller also receives research funding / support from Siemens, Abbott Point of Care, and 1 R01 HL118263 These commercial affiliations do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Research training is important for all resident physicians to be able to interpret and critically appraise scientific literature. It is particularly important for those desiring future careers in academics or research. However, there is limited literature on research training in residency. The ideal scope and content of a model curriculum for research in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs has not been recently defined., Methods: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus as to what content should be included in a model research curriculum for EM residents as well as for those who choose to undertake an elective in EM research., Results: Eight experts in EM clinical and education research participated in the modified Delphi process with two rounds of responses. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 for round 1 and 0.95 for round 2. A curricular outline of 44 items was produced by this consensus process., Conclusions: A model curriculum for EM research is proposed here, along with references to assist residencies in building curricular components., (© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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: 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 <1% in low-risk patients) and effective (reduces 30-day hospitalizations) in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome., 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.

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, p <0.1) 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., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. This study was funded by the Donaghue Foundation with support from the Association of American Medical Colleges. SM receives research funding from NHLBI (R01 HL118263, L30 HL120008), NCATS, the Duke Endowment, Abbott Point of Care, and Roche Diagnostics for investigator-initiated research. In addition, Simon A. Mahler, MD, MS, is the chief medical officer of Impathiq, Inc.

Introduction The 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. Hypothesis A prehospital modified HEART score can predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among undifferentiated chest pain patients transported to the ED., Methods: A 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., Results: Over 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., Conclusions: Prehospital 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. Stopyra JP , Harper WS , Higgins TJ , Prokesova JV , Winslow JE , Nelson RD , Alson RL , Davis CA , Russell GB , Miller CD , Mahler SA . Prehospital modified HEART score predictive of 30-day adverse cardiac events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):58-62.

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 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., (© 2017 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objectives: The HEART Pathway combines a decision aid and serial contemporary cardiac troponin I (cTnI) measures to achieve >99% sensitivity for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30days and early discharge rates >20%. However, the impact of integrating high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) measures into the HEART Pathway has yet to be determined. In this analysis we compare test characteristics of the HEART Pathway using hs-cTnI, hs-cTnT, or cTnI., Design & Methods: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway RCT was conducted. Each patient was risk stratified by the cTn-HEART Pathway (Siemens TnI-Ultra at 0- and 3-h) and a hs-cTn-HEART Pathway using hs-cTnI (Abbott) or hs-cTnT (Roche) at 3-h. The early discharge rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) for MACE (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) at 30days were calculated., Results: hs-cTnI measures were available on 133 patients. MACE occurred in 11/133 (8%) of these patients. Test characteristics for the HEART Pathway using serial cTnI vs 3hour hs-cTnI were the same: sensitivity (100%, 95%CI: 72-100%), specificity (49%, 95%CI: 40-58%), NPV (100%, 95%CI: 94-100%), and early discharge rate (45%, 95%CI: 37-54%). The HEART Pathway using hs-cTnT missed one MACE event (myocardial infarction): sensitivity (91%, 95%CI: 59-100%), specificity (48%, 95%CI: 39-57%), NPV (98%, 95%CI: 91-100%), and early discharge rate (45%, 95%CI: 37-54%)., Conclusions: There was no difference in the test characteristics of the HEART Pathway whether using cTnI or hs-cTnI, with both achieving 100% sensitivity and NPV. Use of hs-cTnT with the HEART Pathway was associated with one missed MACE., (Copyright © 2017 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADP) have been designed to identify low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department. This review article discusses the Asia-Pacific Evaluation of Chest Pain Trial (ASPECT) score, the Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain Trial (ADAPT) score, the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), the HEARTScore and the HEART pathway. These ADPs have been validated in various studies and aid the emergency provider with identifying the low-risk chest pain patient who is appropriate for discharge home, while at the same time highlighting those patients who would benefit from further in-patient work up. These approaches should be paired with patient input and shared decision-making strategies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. Unrelated to the studies described in this article Dr. Cullen received research support and/or honorarium from Abbott Diagnostics, Siemens, Alere, Beckman Coulter and Roche. Dr. Mahler receives research funding from the AAMC/Donaghue Foundation, Duke Endowment, Abbott Point of Care, and NHLBI (1 R01 HL118263-01, L30 HL120008). Dr. Mahler is the chief medical officer of Decision Point Informatics, LLC.

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., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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 (P < 0.001). Mean LOS in intermediate-risk patients with stress testing was 25:53 h/min, compared with 7:55 h/min for those without (P < 0.001). 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., Conclusions: 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.

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 identified 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% confidence interval: 66%-85%) of DIDO times did not meet the 30-minute goal., Conclusions: These findings highlight the difficulty 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.

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

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 <10%. The history/ECG/age/risk factors/troponin (HEART) Pathway is an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP), designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain by identifying patients for early ED discharge. Prior efficacy studies demonstrate that the HEART Pathway safely reduces cardiac testing, while maintaining an acceptably low adverse event rate., Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of HEART Pathway ADP implementation within a health system., Methods: This controlled before-after study will accrue adult patients with acute chest pain, but without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on electrocardiogram for two years and is expected to include approximately 10,000 patients. Outcomes measures include hospitalization rate, objective cardiac testing rates (stress testing and angiography), length of stay, and rates of recurrent cardiac care for participants., Results: In pilot data, the HEART Pathway decreased hospitalizations by 21%, decreased hospital length (median of 12 hour reduction), without increasing adverse events or recurrent care. At the writing of this paper, data has been collected on >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).

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., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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

Objectives: The 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADAPT) is a decision rule designed to identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge. Previous studies in the Asia-Pacific region demonstrated high sensitivity (97.9% to 99.7%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of ADAPT for risk stratification in a cohort of U.S. ED patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods: A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) PA 4005 trial was conducted. This trial enrolled 1,369 patients at least 30 years old with symptoms suggestive of ACS. All data elements were collected prospectively at the time of enrollment. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by ADAPT. Early discharge rate and sensitivity for MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization at 30 days, were calculated., Results: Of 1,140 patients with complete biomarker data, MACE occurred in 31 patients (2.7%). Among 551 of the 1,140 (48.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.4% to 51.3%), ADAPT identified for early discharge; five of the 551 (0.9%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 2.1%) had MACE at 30 days. ADAPT was 83.9% (95% CI = 66.3% to 94.5%) sensitive, identifying 26 of 31 patients with MACE. Of the five patients identified for early discharge by ADAPT with MACE, there were no deaths, one patient with MI, and five with revascularizations., Conclusions: In this first North American application of the ADAPT strategy, sensitivity for MACE within 30 days was 83.9%. One missed adverse event was a MI, with the remainder representing coronary revascularizations. The effect of missing revascularization events needs further investigation., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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.)

Background: The HEART score and North American Chest Pain Rule (NACPR) are decision rules designed to identify acute chest pain patients for early discharge without stress testing or cardiac imaging. This study compares the clinical utility of these decision rules combined with serial troponin determinations., Methods and Results: A secondary analysis was conducted of 1005 participants in the Myeloperoxidase In the Diagnosis of Acute coronary syndromes Study (MIDAS). MIDAS is a prospective observational cohort of Emergency Department (ED) patients enrolled from 18 US sites with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The ability to identify participants for early discharge and the sensitivity for ACS at 30 days were compared among an unstructured assessment, NACPR, and HEART score, each combined with troponin measures at 0 and 3h. ACS, defined as cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, or unstable angina, occurred in 22% of the cohort. The unstructured assessment identified 13.5% (95% CI 11.5-16%) of participants for early discharge with 98% (95% CI 95-99%) sensitivity for ACS. The NACPR identified 4.4% (95% CI 3-6%) for early discharge with 100% (95% CI 98-100%) sensitivity for ACS. The HEART score identified 20% (95% CI 18-23%) for early discharge with 99% (95% CI 97-100%) sensitivity for ACS. The HEART score had a net reclassification improvement of 10% (95% CI 8-12%) versus unstructured assessment and 19% (95% CI 17-21%) versus NACPR., Conclusions: The HEART score with 0 and 3 hour serial troponin measures identifies a substantial number of patients for early discharge while maintaining high sensitivity for ACS., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Very-low-risk patients treated in a chest pain observation unit (CPOU) may threaten efficient care delivery. To optimize the efficiency of CPOU evaluations, it is necessary to quantify the avoidable CPOU utilization rate, examine physician variability, and determine patient and physician characteristics associated with avoidable CPOU utilization., Methods: Consecutive chest pain patients were evaluated in an Emergency Department-based CPOU. Patients were risk stratified based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association framework, age, and electrocardiogram findings. Very-low-risk was defined as age <35, physician assessment of low-risk, and normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram. Patients identified as very-low-risk were considered avoidable CPOU evaluations. Individual physicians' avoidable CPOU utilization rates were calculated. Patients were followed for 30-day major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death, acute myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization., Results: Over 33 months, the registry included 1731 chest pain patients. The study definition of avoidable CPOU evaluations was met by 174 patients (10.1%, 95% confidence interval: 8.7-11.6%). The median rate of physician's avoidable CPOU utilization was 10% (interquartile range: 5.9-13.6%) and varied from 1.9% to 18.4%. None of the patients with an avoidable CPOU evaluation had a major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. Physician predictors of avoidable CPOU utilization included recent residency graduation (<5 years), part-time status, and moderate or high rates of CPOU use., Conclusions: Approximately 10% of CPOU evaluations were avoidable. Wide variability exists among physicians regarding their individual rates of avoidable CPOU utilization. This variability could represent an opportunity to improve the efficiency of CPOU care delivery.

Objectives: Prior studies demonstrating shorter length of stay (LOS) from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) relative to stress testing in emergency department (ED) patients have not considered time of patient presentation. The objectives of this study were to determine whether low-risk chest pain patients receiving stress testing or CCTA have differences in ED plus observation unit (OU) LOS and if there are disparities in testing modality use, based on the time of patient presentation to the ED., Methods: The authors examined a cohort of low-risk chest pain patients evaluated in an ED-based OU using prospective and retrospective OU registry data. During the study period, stress testing and CCTA were both available from 08:00 to 17:00 hours. CCTA was not available on weekends, and therefore only subjects presenting on weekdays were included. Cox regression analysis was used to model the effect of testing modality (stress testing vs. CCTA) on OU LOS. Separate models were fit based on time of patient presentation to the ED using 4-hour blocks beginning at midnight. The primary independent variable was testing modality: stress testing or CCTA. Age, sex, and race were included as covariates. Logistic regression was used to model testing modality choice by time period adjusted for age, sex, and race., Results: Over the study period, 841 subjects presented Monday through Friday. Median LOS was 18.0 hours (interquartile range [IQR] = 11.7 to 22.9 hours). Objective cardiac testing was completed in 788 of 841 (94%) patients, with 496 (63%) receiving stress testing and 292 (37%) receiving CCTA. After age, race, and sex were adjusted for, patients presenting between 08:00 and 11:59 hours not only had a shorter LOS associated with CCTA (p < 0.0001), but also had a greater likelihood of being tested by CCTA (p = 0.001). None of the other time periods had significant differences in LOS or testing modality choice for CCTA relative to stress testing., Conclusions: In an OU setting with weekday and standard business hours CCTA availability, CCTA testing was associated with shorter LOS among low-risk chest pain patients only in patients presenting to the ED between 08:00 and 11:59 hours. That time period was also associated with a greater likelihood of being tested by CCTA, suggesting that ED providers may have intuited the inability of CCTA to shorten LOS during other times., (© 2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objectives: Guidelines recommend that patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain who are at low risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receive an objective cardiac evaluation with a stress test or coronary imaging. It is uncertain whether all women derive benefit from this process. The study aim was to determine the incremental value of objective cardiac testing after serial cardiac markers and physician risk assessment., Methods: Women enrolled in the 18-site Myeloperoxidase in the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome (MIDAS) study had serial troponin I measured at time 0 and 90 minutes and physician risk assessment for the presence of ACS. Risk estimates obtained at the time of ED evaluation were dichotomized as high or non-high risk. The primary outcome was the composite of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or revascularization at 30 days. Logistic regression with receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and net reclassification index were used to determine the diagnostic accuracy for the composite outcome of 30-day MI or revascularization for two models: 1) troponin I results and physician risk assessment alone and 2) troponin I results, physician risk assessment, and objective cardiac testing., Results: A total of 460 women with a median age 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 48.5 to 68 years) were included, and 32 (6.9%) experienced AMI or revascularization by 30 days. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves (AUC) showed that the addition of objective cardiac testing to the combination of troponin I results and physician risk assessment did not significantly improve prediction of 30-day AMI or revascularization (AUC = 0.85 vs. 0.89; p = .053). Using a threshold of 1%, net reclassification index showed that the addition of objective cardiac testing to troponin I results and physician risk assessment worsened the prediction for 30-day AMI and revascularization. All of the reclassified patients were false positives, with nine (2.1%) patients incorrectly reclassified from <1% risk to ≥ 1% risk of 30-day AMI or revascularization., Conclusions: In the era of contemporary troponin assays, objective cardiac testing after an ED clinician risk assessment of non-high risk and negative troponin I results at 0 and 90 minutes does not improve the prediction of 30-day AMI or revascularization in women presenting with chest pain or other symptoms of cardiac ischemia., (© 2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

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., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)