Search

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.

Objectives The emergency department evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is common, costly, and challenging. Risk scores may help standardize clinical care and screening for research studies. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and HEART are two commonly cited risk scores. We tested the null hypothesis that the TIMI and HEART risk scores have equivalent test characteristics. Methods We analyzed data from the Internet Tracking Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS) from 9 EDs on patients with suspected ACS, 1999-2001. We excluded patients with an emergency department diagnosis consistent with ACS, or without sufficient data to calculate TIMI and HEART scores. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events, including all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization. We describe test characteristics of the TIMI and HEART risk scores. Results The study cohort included 8255 patients with 508 (6.2%) 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events. Receiver operating curve and reclassification analyses favored HEART [c statistic: 0.753, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.733-0.773; continuous net reclassification improvement: 0.608, 95% CI: 0.527-0.689] over TIMI (c statistic: 0.678, 95% CI: 0.655-0.702). A HEART score 0-3 [negative predictive value (NPV) 0.982, 95% CI: 0.978-0.986; positive predictive value (PPV) 0.103, 95% CI: 0.094-0.113; likelihood ratio (LR) positive 1.76; LR negative 0.28] demonstrates similar or superior NPV/PPV/LR compared with TIMI = 0 (NPV 0.978, 95% CI: 0.971-0.983; PPV 0.077, 95% CI: 0.071-0.084; LR positive 1.28; LR negative 0.35) and TIMI = 0-1 (NPV 0.963, 95% CI: 0.958-0.968; PPV 0.102, 95% CI: 0.092-0.113; LR positive 1.73; LR negative 0.58). Conclusions The HEART score has better discrimination than TIMI and outperforms TIMI within previously published "low-risk" categories.

Aim To evaluate the impact of antithrombotic regimens during the medical phase of treatment among 13,819 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) treated with an early invasive strategy in the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy (ACUITY) trial. Methods and results Endpoints included composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE; MACE or major bleeding). The median (interquartile range) duration of antithrombin use in the medical only treatment phase was 6.5 (1.8–22.5) hours. MACE, major bleeding, and NACE during the medical only phase occurred in 63 (0.5%), 117 (0.9%), and 178 (1.3%) patients, respectively. MACE rates in the medical-treatment-only phase were not significantly different between the four randomized medical regimens used (heparin alone, bivalirudin alone, heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor [GPI], and bivalirudin plus GPI) (Ptrend = 0.65). The lowest rates of major bleeding and NACE during the medical treatment phase occurred in patients treated with bivalirudin alone (Ptrend = 0.0006 and Ptrend = 0.0004, respectively). Conclusions In patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing an early invasive strategy, treatment with bivalirudin alone significantly reduced major bleeding and improved net clinical outcomes during the upstream medical management phase with comparable rates of MACE. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Introduction The HEART Pathway is a diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain that are safe for early discharge. This protocol has been shown to significantly decrease health care resource utilization compared with usual care. However, the impact of the HEART Pathway on the cost of care has yet to be reported. Methods and Results We performed a cost analysis of patients enrolled in the HEART Pathway trial, which randomized participants to either usual care or the HEART Pathway protocol. For low-risk patients, the HEART Pathway recommended early discharge from the emergency department without further testing. We compared index visit cost, cost at 30 days, and cardiac-related health care cost at 30 days between the 2 treatment arms. Costs for each patient included facility and professional costs. Cost at 30 days included total inpatient and outpatient costs, including the index encounter, regardless of etiology. Cardiac-related health care cost at 30 days included the index encounter and costs adjudicated to be cardiac-related within that period. Two hundred seventy of the 282 patients enrolled in the trial had cost data available for analysis. There was a significant reduction in cost for the HEART Pathway group at 30 days (median cost savings of $216 per individual), which was most evident in low-risk (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction score of 0-1) patients (median savings of $253 per patient) and driven primarily by lower cardiac diagnostic costs in the HEART Pathway group. Conclusions Using the HEART Pathway as a decision aid for patients with undifferentiated chest pain resulted in significant cost savings.

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

Professional society guidelines suggest early stress testing (within 72 hours) after an emergency department (ED) evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, there is increasing concern that current practice results in over-testing without evidence of benefit. We test the hypothesis that early stress testing improves outcomes.We analyzed prospectively collected data from 9 EDs on patients with suspected ACS, 1999-2001. We excluded patients with an ED diagnosis of ACS. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization. We used the HEART score to determine pretest ACS risk (low, intermediate, and high). To mitigate potential confounding, patients with and without early stress testing were matched within pretest risk strata in a 1:2 ratio using propensity scores.Of 7127 potentially eligible patients, 895 (13%) received early stress testing. The analytic cohort included 895 patients with early stress testing matched to 1790 without early stress testing. The overall 30-day MACE rate in both the source and analytic population was 3%. There were no baseline imbalances after propensity score matching (P0.1 for more than 30 variables). There was no association between early stress testing and 30-day MACE [odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6-1.7]. There was no effect modification by pretest risk (low: odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.2-3.7; intermediate: 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6-2.6; high: 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6).Early stress testing is not associated with reduced MACE in patients evaluated for suspected ACS. Early stress testing may have limited value in populations with low MACE rate.

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) result in more than 1 million hospitalizations each year in the United States and are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Despite evidence-based treatment guidelines and advances in therapeutic strategies, the need for well-educated practitioners to provide quality patient care is still evident. As such, continuing medical education (CME) and consultation with recognized experts are valuable tools that can enhance clinical knowledge and lead to improvements in best practices. In a CME platform, collaborative dialogue with nationally recognized opinion leaders within the field of ACS enabled 111 clinician participants to develop strategies for personal practice improvement. Faculty experts addressed specific challenging clinical questions posed by participants regarding 1 of 4 preselected topics related to the care of patients with ACS. After a 3-month period, 94% of participants reported that their strategies for practice improvement had affected patient care. Participants also rated the utility of national guidelines in their practices higher following participation in the activity and demonstrated improved clinical knowledge. As a result of this activity, participants were able to solve self-identified issues in clinical practice as well as improve their understanding of current clinical practice guidelines. Adherence to guideline-recommended care was associated with improvements in patient outcomes, and participant feedback suggests that this was an effective type of CME platform that resulted in positive changes in patient care. Furthermore, considerable interest exists for the application of this model in other therapeutic areas.

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

Objectives This study sought to compare the direct cost of medical care and clinical events during the first year after patients with intermediate risk acute chest pain were randomized to stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) observation unit (OU) testing versus inpatient care. Background In a recent study, randomization to OU-CMR reduced median index hospitalization cost compared with the cost of inpatient care in patients presenting to the emergency department with intermediate risk acute chest pain. Methods Emergency department patients with intermediate risk chest pain were randomized to OU-CMR (OU care, cardiac markers, stress CMR) or inpatient care (admission, care per admitting provider). This analysis reports the direct cost of cardiac-related care and clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction, revascularization, cardiovascular death) during the first year of follow-up subsequent to discharge. Consistent with health economics literature, provider cost was calculated from work-related relative value units using the Medicare conversion factor; facility charges were converted to cost using departmental-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Linear models were used to compare cost accumulation among study groups. Results We included 109 randomized subjects in this analysis (52 OU-CMR, 57 inpatient care). The median age was 56 years; baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At 1 year, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72) with 1 patient in each group experiencing a cardiac event after discharge. First-year cardiac-related costs were significantly lower for participants randomized to OU-CMR than for participants receiving inpatient care (geometric mean = $3,101 vs. $4,742 including the index visit [p = 0.004] and $29 vs. $152 following discharge [p = 0.012]). During the year following randomization, 6% of OU-CMR and 9% of inpatient care participants experienced a major cardiac event (p = 0.72). Conclusions An OU-CMR strategy reduces cardiac-related costs of medical care during the index visit and over the first year subsequent to discharge, without an observed increase in major cardiac events. (Cost Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging [MRI] Use in Emergency Department [ED] Patients With Chest Pain; NCT00678639 )

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association guidelines are the nationally accepted standards for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this recognition, adherence to guideline recommendations remains suboptimal with 25% of opportunities to provide guideline appropriate care missed. To address performance gaps related to acute coronary syndrome care and improve patient outcomes, a performance improvement (PI) initiative was designed for cardiologists and emergency department physicians. As an American Medical Association-approved, standardized continuing medical education initiative, participating physicians can earn up to 20 American Medical Association-PRA Category 1 Credits by completing 2 phases of self-assessment in addition to developing and implementing a PI plan to address self-identified areas where improvement in patient care is needed. As the second in a series of 3 articles, this article describes the initial data submitted by 101 participating physicians and how their treatment practices compared with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines as well as with current national standards. Overall, participating physicians meet guideline expectations with performance and documentation of a 12-lead electrocardiography, measurement of cardiac biomarkers, and administration of aspirin. Identified areas of improvement were the standardization of treatment protocols, use of risk assessment scores, appropriate dosing of anticoagulants, and improvement in patient treatment times. A noted challenge of this PI initiative is the low rate of physician participation, with fewer than 10% of registered physicians actively submitting patient data. This fact may reflect several barriers to PI, such as: (1) lack of time to collect and submit data, (2) the belief that current practices do not need to be improved, and (3) the need for system-based improvements.

Background Acute treatment is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS). Hypothesis Patients who receive appropriate acute treatment are more likely to receive guideline-recommended therapy at hospital discharge. Methods Use of aspirin (ASA), β-blockers, and clopidogrel was evaluated in the first 24 hours and upon hospital discharge according to the 2002 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC AHA) guidelines for NSTE ACS. We compared the relationship between 3 groups: (1) ASA therapy given in the emergency department (ED); (2) ASA therapy not given in the ED, but within the first 24 hours; and (3) no acute ASA treatment. The ASA data set includes 10, 468 high risk patients with positive cardiac biomarkers or ischemic ST-segment changes on ECG from the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. β-Blocker therapy was evaluated in 11, 838 and clopidogrel treatment in 17, 513 patients presenting to over 345 US hospitals. Results Patients who received acute ASA in the ED, ASA in the first 24 hours but not in the ED, and patients who did not receive ASA therapy within 24 hours had discharge ASA treatment rates of 91.8%, 91.4%, and 55.6%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Patients eligible for β-blocker and clopidogrel therapy had discharge β-blocker treatment rates of 91.1%, 92.4%, and 46.6% (P < 0.0001), and discharge clopidogrel treatment rates of 86.6%, 92.4%, and 38.5% (P < 0.0001), respectively. Conclusions Acute treatment for NSTE ACS in-hospital is associated with appropriate treatment on hospital discharge. This link between early treatment and discharge therapy may lead to new approaches ensuring the delivery of high-quality, guideline-based care for patients with NSTE ACS. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Objectives: The objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: Data from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage StrategY (ACUITY) trial were used to conduct a post hoc subgroup analysis of high-risk ACS patients (cardiac biomarker elevation or ST-segment deviation) who initially presented to the ED. The ACUITY trial randomized patients to receive heparin (unfractionated [UFH] or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition (GPI), bivalirudin plus GPI, or bivalirudin monotherapy. Endpoints included composite ischemia, major bleeding (not coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) related), and net clinical outcome (major bleeding plus composite ischemia). Results: Of 13,819 participants in the ACUITY trial, 6,441 presented initially to the ED, met high-risk criteria, and were included in the primary analysis. Bivalirudin alone when compared to heparin plus GPI, after adjusting for covariates, was associated with an improvement in net clinical outcome (12.3% vs. 14.3%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.99), similar composite ischemia (9.3% vs. 9.1%, adjusted OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.24), and less major bleeding (4.0% vs. 6.8%, adjusted OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.75). Bivalirudin plus GPI when compared to heparin plus GPI had similar net clinical outcome (13.8% vs. 14.3%, adjusted OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.11), composite ischemia (8.8% vs. 9.1%, adjusted OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.11), and major bleeding (6.8% vs. 6.8%, adjusted OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.30). Conclusions: Bivalirudin monotherapy decreases major bleeding while providing similar protection from ischemic events compared to heparin plus GPI in patients with high-risk ACS admitted through the ED.

Objectives: The value of unstructured physician estimate of risk for disease processes, other than acute coronary syndrome (ACS), has been demonstrated. The authors sought to evaluate the predictive value of unstructured physician estimate of risk for ACS in emergency department (ED) patients without obvious initial evidence of a cardiac event. Methods: This was a post hoc secondary analysis of the Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS), a prospectively collected multicenter data registry of patients over the age of 18 years presenting to the ED with symptoms of ACS between 1999 and 2001. In this registry, following patient history, physical exam, and electrocardiogram (ECG), the unstructured treating physician estimate of risk was recorded. A 30-day follow-up and a medical record review were used to determine rates of adverse cardiac events, death, myocardial infarction (MI), or revascularization procedure. The analysis included all patients with nondiagnostic ECG changes, normal initial biomarkers, and a non-MI initial impression from the registry and excluded those without complete data or who were lost to follow-up. Data were stratified by unstructured physician risk estimate: noncardiac, low risk, high risk, or unstable angina. Results: Of 15,608 unique patients in the registry, 10,145 met inclusion ⁄exclusion criteria. Patients were defined as having unstable angina in 6.0% of cases; high risk, 23.5% of cases; low risk, 44.2%; and noncardiac, 26.3% of cases. Adverse cardiac event rates had an inverse relationship, decreasing from 22.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.8% to 25.6%) for unstable angina, 10.2% (95% CI = 9.0% to 11.5%) for those stratified as high risk, 2.2% (95% CI = 1.8% to 2.6%) for low risk, and to 1.8% (95% CI = 1.4% to 2.4%) for noncardiac. The relative risk (RR) of an adverse cardiac event for those with an initial label of unstable angina compared to those with a low-risk designation was 10.2 (95% CI = 8.0 to 13.0). The RR of an event for those with a high-risk initial impression compared to those with a low-risk initial impression was 4.7 (95% CI = 3.8 to 5.9). The risk of an event among those with a low-risk initial impression was the same as for those with a noncardiac initial impression (RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.2). Conclusions: In ED patients without obvious initial evidence of a cardiac event, unstructured emergency physician (EP) estimate of risk correlates with adverse cardiac outcomes. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2009; 16:740‐748 a 2009 by the Society for Academic Emergency

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the impact of age on outcomes in patients with moderate- and high-risk non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) enrolled in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. Background Aging-associated changes in physiology and metabolism may alter the risk and benefit of therapeutic strategies from that observed in younger people. Methods We performed a pre-specified analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes in 4 age groups, overall and among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Results Of 13,819 patients in the ACUITY trial, 3,655 (26.4%) were Conclusions Ischemic and bleeding complications after NSTE-ACS increase with age. Although ischemic event rates are not statistically different with either bivalirudin alone or a heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bleeding complications are significantly less frequent with bivalirudin alone. Because of the substantial risk of bleeding in patients age ≥75 years, the number needed to treat to avoid 1 major bleeding event using bivalirudin alone was the lowest in the elderly group, especially among those undergoing PCI. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158 )

Patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) need to be quickly diagnosed, risk-stratified, and treated accordingly. Anticoagulants used in the ED should be easy to use and suitable for all patients with acute coronary syndromes, regardless of treatment strategy. In patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction, current guidelines recommend unfractionated heparin regardless of reperfusion strategy or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as an alternative in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The LMWH enoxaparin is approved for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients managed medically or undergoing PCI. The recently updated American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction recommend unfractionated heparin or the LMWH enoxaparin (class IA recommendation), or the factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux or the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin (class IB recommendation) for patients managed invasively. This review discusses each of these anticoagulant options in the context of patients transitioning to PCI.

Objective:To assess the potential cost savings of the emergency-department (ED) diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and other myocardial ischemia using a nine-hour ED evaluation protocol. Methods:This one-year study of chest-pain evaluation unit (CPEU) patient charges was undertaken at two midwestern urban university hospital EDs. Included in the study were 447 patients presenting to the EDs with chest pain consistent with myocardial ischemia, nondiagnostic electrocardiograms (ECGs), and stable vital signs. Following initial ED evaluation, CPEU patients underwent nine hours of continuous ECG ST-segment monitoring with serum CK-MB levels determined at zero, three, six, and nine hours. Nonrandomized concurrent chest pain patients with routine ED evaluation and hospital admission without CPEU workup served as controls. At Center 1, patients with negative CPEU evaluations underwent immediate echocardiography (echo) and graded exercise testing (GXT) followed by ED release (CPEU;REL). At Center 2, CPEU patients were released from the ED for outpatient stress thallium testing (CPEU; REL). At Center 2, CPEU patients with positive workups as indicated by elevated CK-MB levels, ischemia by ST-segment monitoring, or positive echo/GXT/stress thallium testing were admitted to the hospital for further testing. Control patients were admitted directly to the hospital to evaluate for AMI. Hospital charges for CPEU and control groups were compared. Results:(Total charges in dollars, mean ± SD, Student's t-test): Conclusion:At both centers, hospital charges related to the acute evaluation of chest pain were significantly lower with this ED diagnostic protocol for AMI and myocardial ischemia.

With the availability of new data and the recent release of new European and US guidelines, contemporary care paradigms for the treatment of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS), including those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, are likely to undergo substantial changes. In recognition of this shifting landscape as well as the impact of new guidelines on care models for the treatment of patients with NSTE ACS, a roundtable was convened on October 25, 2007, to discuss the implications of these changes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the presentations and subsequent discussions from the roundtable, which examined the guidelines and evidence from a variety of perspectives, and to explore the best ways to incorporate new treatment paradigms into everyday clinical care. The multiple viewpoints expressed by the roundtable attendees illustrate the recognition that at this point, consensus has not been reached on the optimum algorithm for treatment of these patients. This article focuses on issues discussed during the roundtable from the perspective of the practicing cardiologist.

Objectives: To describe the presenting characteristics and risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain who have a normal initial troponin level followed by a raised troponin level within 12 h (evolving myocardial infarction (EMI)). Methods: Data from the Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*tr ACS ), a registry of patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain, were used. This analysis included patients without ST segment elevation with at least two troponin assay results ⩽12 h apart. Patients were stratified into three groups: EMI (initial troponin assay negative, second troponin assay positive), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (initial troponin assay positive) and no MI (all troponin assays negative). Results: Of 4136 eligible patients, 5% had EMI, 8% had NSTEMI and 87% had no MI. Patients with EMI were more similar to those with NSTEMI than those with no MI with respect to demographic characteristics, presentation, admission patterns and revascularisation. The initial ECG in patients with EMI was most commonly non-diagnostic (51%), but physicians’ initial impressions commonly reflected MI, unstable angina or high-risk chest pain (76%). This risk assessment was followed by a high rate of critical care admissions (32%) and revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention 17%) among patients with EMI. Conclusion: Patients with EMI appear similar at presentation to those with NSTEMI. Patients with EMI are perceived as being at high risk, evidenced by similar diagnostic impressions, admission practices and revascularisation rates to patients with NSTEMI.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients receiving consistent unfractionated heparin (UFH)/enoxaparin (ENOX) therapy and in those switched at randomization to bivalirudin monotherapy. Background Crossover between UFH and ENOX has been associated with increased adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) trial demonstrated superior net clinical outcomes with similar rates of ischemia and significantly less major bleeding with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with UFH/ENOX plus a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor. It is unknown if these results would be preserved in patients switched from UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy. Methods We compared composite ischemia, major bleeding, and net clinical outcomes at 30 days in patients receiving consistent UFH/ENOX therapy and in those switched at randomization from pre-treatment with UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy. We also compared outcomes in patients naive to antithrombin therapy who were randomized to UFH/ENOX or bivalirudin monotherapy. Results Two thousand one hundred thirty-seven patients received consistent UFH/ENOX (UFH n = 1,294, ENOX n = 843), and 2,078 patients pre-treated with UFH/ENOX were switched to bivalirudin. Patients switching to bivalirudin had similar rates of ischemia (6.9% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.52), less major bleeding (2.8% vs. 5.8%, p Conclusions Switching from UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy results in comparable ischemic outcomes and an approximately 50% reduction in major bleeding compared with consistent UFH/ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Patients naive to antithrombin therapy administered bivalirudin monotherapy had a significant reduction in bleeding and similar rates of ischemia compared with naive patients initiated with UFH or ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

Although the use of clopidogrel in patients "unlikely" to require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is recommended in current guidelines of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management, an important minority of patients require CABG. We assessed the ability to predict need for CABG from demographics known at the time of ACS presentation, using data from SYNERGY.Patients undergoing CABG at any time after the index angiogram were included. Early CABG was defined as surgery72 hours after angiography. The relationship between cessation of enoxaparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition, CABG timing, and 30-day death or MI and bleeding events was assessed. Demographic and clinical factors and geographic location were assessed as predictors of early CABG or CABG at any time. The discriminatory utility is reported with the c-index.Of the 9053 patients undergoing angiography, 1793 (18.1%) received CABG. Early CABG (n = 972) was associated with more bleeding events (39.2% vs 29.4%, P.001) but not death or MI. The risk of bleeding events diminished when surgery was delayed18 hours after cessation of enoxaparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition. Clinical factors associated with early CABG included diabetes and lack of prior CABG or clopidogrel. However, overall the logistic regression model had poor discriminatory ability to predict patients likely to require CABG in the setting of an ACS presentation (c-index 0.671).It is difficult to predict those high-risk patients with ACS who will undergo surgical revascularization based on baseline clinical characteristics.

Antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risks of recurrent myocardial infarction and restenosis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is critically important to optimize the early treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Traditionally, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA; aspirin) has been recommended for patients with suspected STEMI, but this agent targets only one of several pathways of platelet aggregation. Antiplatelet agents with different inhibitory mechanisms may act synergistically with ASA. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are generally not used with fibrinolytic agents in acute STEMI management; indeed, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors plus bolus fibrinolytics increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. Aggressive antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel reduces mortality in STEMI patients and offers significant clinical benefits, without an associated increase in major bleeding events. Recent trials support the development of an early and aggressive approach to more complete platelet inhibition using clopidogrel, in combination with ASA, for patients with STEMI.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a serious manifestation of atherothrombosis. Platelets play an important role in the pathogenesis of atherothrombosis, and the use of antiplatelet agents is associated with substantial improvements in clinical outcome. Current guidelines for the management of patients with STEMI stress the importance of using antiplatelet agents as an integral part of acute and long-term therapy. However, these and other recommended therapies are frequently underutilized. In-hospital quality improvement initiatives have been shown to substantially improve adherence to guideline-recommended therapies at the time of discharge. This review discusses the role of platelets in atherothrombosis and describes the medical management of patients with STEMI, highlighting current guideline recommendations, adherence in clinical practice, and the impact of quality improvement programs in maintaining the continuum of care into the ambulatory setting.

ObjectivesTo describe the evaluation and outcomes of elder patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) presenting to the emergency department (ED). MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of the Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i∗trACS) registry, which had 17,713 ED visits for suspected ACS. First visits from the United States with nonmissing patient demographics, 12-lead electrocardiogram results, and clinical history were included in the analysis. Those who used cocaine or amphetamines or left the ED against medical advice were excluded. Elder was defined as age 75 years or older. ACS was defined by 30-day revascularization, Diagnosis-related Group codes, or death within 30 days with positive cardiac biomarkers at index hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between being elder and 1) 30-day all-cause mortality, 2) ACS, 3) diagnostic tests ordered, and 4) disposition. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed to determine which clinical variables were associated with ACS in elder and nonelder patients. ResultsA total of 10,126 patients with suspected ACS presenting to the ED were analyzed. For patients presenting to the ED, being elder was independently associated with ACS and all-cause 30-day mortality, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5 to 2.2) and 2.6 (95% CI = 1.6 to 4.3), respectively. Elder patients were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI = 1.8 to 2.6), but there were no differences in the rates of cardiac catheterization and noninvasive stress cardiac imaging. Different clinical variables were associated with ACS in elder and nonelder patients. Chest pain as chief complaint, typical chest pain, and previous history of coronary artery disease were significantly associated with ACS in nonelder patients but were not associated with ACS in elder patients. Male gender and left arm pain were associated with ACS in both elder and nonelder patients. ConclusionsElder patients who present to the ED with suspected ACS represent a population at high risk for ACS and 30-day mortality. Elders are more likely to be admitted to the hospital, but despite an increased risk for adverse events, they have similar odds of receiving a diagnostic test, such as stress cardiac imaging or cardiac catheterization, compared with nonelder patients. Different clinical variables are associated with ACS, and clinical prediction rules utilizing presenting symptoms should consider the effect modification of age.

Previous studies of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACSs) complicated by heart failure (HF) have focused primarily on patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction defined by an ejection fraction (EF)40%. Little is known about HF with preserved systolic function (EFor =40%) in the NSTE ACS population. We identified high-risk patients with NSTE ACS (ischemic electrocardiographic changes and/or positive cardiac markers) from the CRUSADE quality improvement initiative who had an EF recorded and who had information on HF status. Management and outcomes were analyzed and compared based on the presence or absence of HF and whether left ventricular EF wasor =40%. Of 94,558 patients with NSTE ACS, 21,561 (22.8%) presented with signs of HF, and most had HF with preserved systolic function (n = 11,860, 55%). Mortality rates were 10.7% for HF/systolic dysfunction, 5.8% for HF/preserved systolic function, 5.7% for no HF/systolic dysfunction, and 1.5% for no HF/preserved systolic function. Use of guideline-recommended medical therapies and interventions was frequently significantly lower in those with HF regardless of EF compared with those without HF, except for use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. In conclusion, NSTE ACS complicated by HF with preserved systolic function is common and associated with a 2.3-fold higher mortality compared with NSTE ACS without HF or systolic dysfunction. Guideline-recommended therapies and interventions are under-utilized in patients with NSTE ACS and HF, with and without preserved systolic function, compared with those without HF.

To evaluate the impact of antithrombotic regimens during the medical phase of treatment among 13,819 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) treated with an early invasive strategy in the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy (ACUITY) trial.Endpoints included composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE; MACE or major bleeding). The median (interquartile range) duration of antithrombin use in the medical only treatment phase was 6.5 (1.8-22.5) hours. MACE, major bleeding, and NACE during the medical only phase occurred in 63 (0.5%), 117 (0.9%), and 178 (1.3%) patients, respectively. MACE rates in the medical-treatment-only phase were not significantly different between the four randomized medical regimens used (heparin alone, bivalirudin alone, heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor [GPI], and bivalirudin plus GPI) (Ptrend = 0.65). The lowest rates of major bleeding and NACE during the medical treatment phase occurred in patients treated with bivalirudin alone (Ptrend = 0.0006 and Ptrend = 0.0004, respectively).In patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing an early invasive strategy, treatment with bivalirudin alone significantly reduced major bleeding and improved net clinical outcomes during the upstream medical management phase with comparable rates of MACE. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of receiving pretreatment with antithrombin before randomization as well as overall efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the SYNERGY (Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors) trial. BACKGROUND The SYNERGY trial results demonstrated noninferiority in outcomes with enoxaparin compared with UFH. Randomized treatment was independent of prerandornization treatment. METHODS Analyses were first performed on the 4 prerandomization subgroups: patients who received no antithrombin therapy and those who were treated with enoxaparin or UFH or both. Then, we focused on the subgroup of patients who received no pretreatment or were pretreated with and randomized to the same drug. Of the 9,978 patients, 2,440 did not receive prerandomization therapy and 6,138 received consistent therapy through randomization. The primary end point was the composite of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. RESULTS After adjustment for differences among the subgroups, no significant difference in the association between the 4 pretreatment groups and death or MI remained (p = 0.171). The randomized treatment effect on 30-day death or MI tended to vary with pretreatment (p = 0.055 for interaction test after adjustment). Patients who received consistent therapy with enoxaparin had significantly less death or MI than patients randomized to UFH (adjusted p = 0.041) with a trend toward increased bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with antithrombin therapy before randomization had potential impact on comparison of study drug effects. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between subgroups, consistent therapy with enoxaparin might be superior to UFH in reducing death or nonfatal MI, with a modest excess in bleeding.

Study objective In patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with an initial diagnostic impression of noncardiac chest pain, we determine the 30-day incidence of adverse cardiac events and characteristics associated with those events. Methods The multicenter, prospectively collected Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i ∗ tr ACS ) registry of patients with chest pain enrolled from June 1, 1999, to August 1, 2001, was reviewed. We included patients if the physician's initial diagnostic impression was noncardiac chest pain after the medical history, physical examination, and initial 12-lead ECG. ED records, inpatient records, and follow-up results were reviewed for evidence of an adverse cardiac event defined as ST-segment or non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization, or cardiac death within 30 days. Results Of 17,737 patients enrolled in i ∗ tr ACS , 2,992 had an initial emergency physician impression of noncardiac chest pain. Of these, 85 (2.8%) patients had definite evidence for an adverse cardiac event. The adverse cardiac event group was older (61.2 versus 47.9 years), more likely to be men (58.6% versus 38.7%), and had a higher Acute Cardiac Ischemia–Time Insensitive Predictive Instrument score (26.1 versus 15.6). Factors associated with adverse cardiac events included hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, history of coronary artery disease, and history of congestive heart failure. Conclusion When the initial impression is noncardiac chest pain, high-risk features such as traditional cardiovascular risk factors or a history of coronary artery disease are associated with adverse cardiac events. In the absence of well-defined criteria, treating physicians should consider further evaluation before diagnosing patients with noncardiac chest pain if these features are present.

The format of the paper is to allow three authors to discuss what they believe are the most significant political issues facing emergency medicine (EM) in their country or region. Each author writes independently and does not see any other contributing author's work, therefore potential overlap of subject matter is inevitable. However, we were soliciting their individual opinions about the serious issues confronting us today, rather than a consensus. An additional author, well familiar with the topics being discussed, wrote the Commentary from an overview perspective on the writings of the other authors. This supplemental opinion was offered as a method for enhanced cohesiveness in describing the political situations impacting the specialty of emergency medicine. The three authors for the United States are James Hoekstra, Professor and Chair, Wake Forest University Health Sciences; Robert McNamara, Professor and Chair, Temple University School of Medicine, and Robert Schafermeyer, Associate Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, North Carolina School of Medicine. Between them, they represent more than 50 years experience in clinical and academic emergency medicine. They write from a personal perspective. Their views are their own, and do not represent any organization(s) with which they may have or had affiliations.

UNLABELLED Numerous studies have documented treatment disparities in patients with acute coronary syndromes based on race and gender. Other causes for treatment disparities may exist. OBJECTIVES To determine if insurance status affects quality of care in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presenting to academic health centers. METHODS The Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS), a prospective multicenter registry of patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department who receive an electrocardiogram, was used as the database (N = 17,737). A subset of patients who were diagnosed as having AMI were selected from the database (n = 936). Patients were classified as having either ST-segment elevation MI (n = 178) or non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 758). Insurance status, age, race, and gender were extracted as predictor variables. The influence of predictor variables on treatment modality was investigated using logistic regression, adjusted for clustering within sites. RESULTS The odds of a self-pay patient with ST-segment elevation MI receiving fibrinolytics were 3.23 (95% CI = 1.56 to 6.69) times higher than for other patients. Patients with Medicare coverage were less likely to receive fibrinolytics (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.65) and tended to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention less often (OR 0.60, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.01). The odds of a privately insured patient's receiving coronary artery bypass grafting (OR 2.76, 95% CI = 1.62 to 4.72) or percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 1.47, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.11) were higher than for other patients. CONCLUSIONS Insurance coverage appears to affect treatment in patients with AMI, with self-pay patients more likely to receive less-expensive therapies and insured patients more likely to receive invasive treatments.

Background The acute benefits of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for non-ST–segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) remain unclear. Methods In this pilot trial, 311 patients with NSTE ACS were randomly assigned in the emergency department to double-blinded therapy with eptifibatide or placebo for 12 to 24 hours before crossover to open-label eptifibatide. Serial creatine-kinase MB (CK-MB) and quantitative cardiac troponin T levels were collected during the first 24 hours to assess the impact of early platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size as measured by cardiac markers. Results Median peak CK-MB (10.3 vs 11.8 ng/mL; P = .71) and peak quantitative cardiac troponin T levels (0.2 vs 0.3 ng/mL; P = .95) were similar between treatment groups, respectively. Median calculated peak CK-MB values (41 vs 40 ng/mL; P = .72) and area under the CK-MB curve measurements (980 vs 764 μg/min/L; P = .68) from curve-fitting analyses that could be performed in 106 of 311 patients were also similar. Conclusions In this pilot trial, early administration of eptifibatide in the emergency department did not modulate serologic measurements of infarct size in patients with NSTE ACS.

Objectives: African Americans with acute coronary syndromes receive cardiac catheterization less frequently than whites. The objective was to determine if such disparities extend to acute evaluation and noninterventional treatment. Methods: Data on adults with chest pain (N= 7,935) presenting to eight emergency departments (EDs) were evaluated from the Internet Tracking Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Groups were selected from final ED diagnosis: 1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), n= 400; 2) unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI), n= 1,153; and 3) nonacute coronary syndrome chest pain (non-ACS CP), n= 6,382. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AMI and UA/NSTEMI were used to evaluate racial disparities with logistic regression models. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, gender, guideline publication, and insurance status. Non-ACS CP patients were assessed by comparing electrocardiographic (ECG)/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, admission rates, and invasive and noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). Results: African Americans with UA/NSTEMI received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors less often than whites (OR, 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.91). African Americans with non-ACS CP underwent ECG/laboratory evaluation, medical treatment, and invasive and noninvasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.05). Other nonwhites with non-ACS CP were admitted and received invasive testing for CAD less often than whites (p < 0.01). African Americans and other nonwhites with AMI underwent catheterization less frequently than whites (OR, 0.45; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.71 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, respectively). A similar disparity in catheterization was noted in UA/NSTEMI therapy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.68 and OR, 0.68; 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.99). Conclusions: Racial disparities in acute chest pain management extend beyond cardiac catheterization. Poor compliance with recommended treatments for ACS may be an explanation.

Objectives To determine electrocardiogram (ECG) predictors of positive cardiac markers and short-term adverse cardiac events in an undifferentiated chest pain population presenting to emergency departments (EDs). The authors hypothesized that specific ECG findings, other than those previously identified in higher-risk populations, would be predictive of cardiac outcomes and positive cardiac markers. Methods This study used data from a prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed Internet-based data registry of undifferentiated chest pain patients (i*trACS). Logistic regression modeling was performed to determine the ECG findings that were predictive of 1) positive cardiac markers and 2) short-term adverse cardiac events. Results ST-segment elevation (STE), ST-segment depression (STD), pathological Q-waves (PQW), and T-wave inversion were associated with increased odds of percutaneous coronary intervention or catheterization, myocardial infarction, or coronary artery bypass grafting. The odds of creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) measuring positive were increased if STE, STD, or PQW were present [odds ratio (OR) 2.495, 2.582, and 1.295, respectively]. A right bundle branch block tended to decrease the odds of CK-MB measuring positive (OR 0.658). A similar pattern of results was observed for troponin I (OR 3.608 for STE, 3.72 for STD, 1.538 for PQW). Troponin T showed an increased odds of measuring positive if any of STE, STD, left bundle branch block, or T-wave inversion were evident (OR 2.313, 2.816, 1.80, and 1.449, respectively). Conclusions Initial ECG criteria can be used to predict short-term cardiac outcomes and positive cardiac markers. These findings can be important aids in the risk-stratification and aggressive treatment regimens of chest pain patients presenting to EDs.

Although acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a well-recognized source of morbidity and mortality for patients with cardiovascular disease, evidence-based therapies shown to improve outcomes for ACS are frequently underused in appropriate patients, especially in the emergency department (ED). Despite dissemination of expert recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and ED-focused recapitulation of them in the emergency medicine literature, significant barriers continue to limit the adoption of guidelines in clinical practice and appear to hinder the use of beneficial therapies and interventions in the ED. Unique and creative approaches are therefore needed to stimulate better adherence to practice guidelines and improve the quality of care for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTE) ACS. The CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress ADverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) quality improvement and educational initiative provides an innovative and multifaceted approach to the education of emergency physicians and cardiologists in the care of patients with NSTE ACS. The CRUSADE initiative is a multidisciplinary cooperative effort involving over 400 EDs and medical centers. It includes an ACS registry designed to characterize demographic patterns and risk stratification results in patients who meet diagnostic criteria for high-risk NSTE ACS. It also measures the use of ED treatment modalities including aspirin, heparin, beta-blockers, and platelet inhibitors as recommended in the ACC/AHA guidelines. The results of a given institution's treatment patterns will be reported back to the practitioners, with comparisons with national norms. These reports can be used as quality improvement tools to improve care at participating institutions. Beyond a static registry, these reports are coupled with educational efforts by the CRUSADE steering committee, scientific publications of risk stratification practice and success, as well as ED patterns of care, and tailored educational interventions, to reinforce compliance with the ACC/AHA guidelines. This initiative represents a truly innovative approach to improving care for ACS patients in the ED as well as on the cardiology service. This article describes the CRUSADE initiative and its implications for the practicing emergency physician. It is the intent of CRUSADE to improve patient care in the ED by tracking and encouraging compliance with evidence-based guidelines for the evaluation and management of NSTE ACS.

Objective:Cardiac marker sensitivity depends on chest pain duration at the time of sampling. Our objective was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of early CK–MB and myoglobin assays in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with nondiagnostic ECGs, stratified by the duration of ongoing chest pain at the time of ED assessment.Methods:This was a prospective observational study carried out in 10 US and 2 Canadian EDs. Patients >25 years of age with ongoing chest pain and nondiagnostic ECGs were stratified by pain duration (0–4 h, 4–8 h, 8–12 h, >12 h). CK–MB and myoglobin assays were drawn at T = 0 (ED assessment) and T = 1 hr. Patients were followed for 7–14 days to identify all cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). ED test results were correlated with patient outcomes.Results:Of 5005 eligible patients, 565 had AMI. Pain duration was 0–4 h in 3014 patients, 4–8 h in 961, 8–12 h in 487, and >12 h in 543. Marker sensitivity increased with pain duration, ranging from 28%–77% for CK–MB and 39%–73% for myoglobin. The maximal sensitivity achieved by a T = 0 assay was 73%, and this was in patients with 8–12 or >12 h of ongoing pain. No combination of tests achieved 90% sensitivity in any pain duration strata.Conclusions:Regardless of chest pain duration, single assays and early serial markers (0+1 hr) do not rule out AMI; therefore, serial assays over longer observation periods are required. Likelihood ratios derived in this study will help physicians who use Bayesian analysis to determine post-test AMI likelihood in patients with chest pain.

Accurate identification of low-risk emergency department (ED) chest pain patients who may be safe for discharge has not been well defined. Goldman criteria have reliably risk-stratified patients but have not identified any subset safe for ED release. Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) values have also been shown to risk-stratify patients but have not identified a subset safe for ED release.To test the hypothesis that ED chest pain patients with a Goldman risk ofor =4% and a single negative cTnI (or =0.3 ng/mL) at the time of ED presentation would be safe for discharge [1% risk for death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), revascularization].A prospective cohort study was performed in which consecutive ED chest pain patients were enrolled from July 1999 to November 2000. Data collected included patient demographics, medical and cardiac history, electrocardiogram, and creatine kinase-MB and cTnI. Goldman risk stratification score was calculated while patients were still in the ED. Hospital course was followed daily. Telephone follow-up occurred at 30 days. The main outcome was death, AMI, or revascularization (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/stents/coronary artery bypass grafting) within 30 days.Of 2,322 patients evaluated, 998 had both a Goldman riskor =4% and a cTnIor =0.3 ng/mL. During the initial hospitalization, 37 patients met the composite endpoint (3.7%): 6 deaths (0.7%), 17 AMIs (1.7%), 18 revascularizations (1.8%). Between the time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up, 15 patients met the composite endpoint: 4 deaths (0.4%), 6 AMIs (0.6%), and 5 revascularizations (0.5%). Overall, 49 patients met the composite endpoint (4.9%; 95% CI = 3.6% to 6.2%): 10 deaths (1.0%; 95% CI = 0.4% to 1.6%); 23 AMIs (2.3%; 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.2%), and 23 revascularizations (2.3%; 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.2%) within 30 days of presentation.The combination of two risk stratification modalities for ED chest pain patients (Goldman riskor =4% and cTnIor =0.3 ng/mL) did not identify a subgroup of chest pain patients at1% risk for death, AMI, or revascularization within 30 days.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess whether the immediate availability of serum markers would increase the appropriate use of thrombolytic therapy. BACKGROUND Serum markers such as myoglobin and creatine kinase, MB fraction (CK-MB) are effective in detecting acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the emergency setting. Appropriate candidates for thrombolytic therapy are not always identified in the emergency department (ED), as 20% to 30% of eligible patients go untreated, representing 10% to 15% of all patients with AMI. Patients presenting with chest pain consistent with acute coronary syndrome were evaluated in the EDs of 12 hospitals throughout North America. METHODS In this randomized, controlled clinical trial, physicians received either the immediate myoglobin/CK-MB results at 0 and 1 h after enrollment (stat) or conventional reporting of myoglobin/CK-MB 3 h or more after hospital admission (control). The primary end point was the comparison of the proportion of patients within the stat group versus control group who received appropriate thrombolytic therapy. Secondary end points included the emergent use of any reperfusion treatment in both groups, initial hospital disposition of patients (coronary care unit, monitor or nonmonitor beds) and the proportion of patients appropriately discharged from the ED. RESULTS Of 6,352 patients enrolled, 814 (12.8%) were diagnosed as having AMI. For patients having AMI, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients treated with thrombolytic therapy between the stat and control groups (15.1% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.45). When only patients with ST segment elevation on their initial electrocardiogram were compared, there were still no significant differences between the groups. Also, there was no difference in the hospital placement of patients in critical care and non–critical care beds. The availability of early markers was associated with more hospital admissions as compared to the control group, as the number of patients discharged from the ED was decreased in the stat versus control groups (28.4% vs. 31.5%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS The availability of 0- and 1-h myoglobin and CK-MB results after ED evaluation had no effect on the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients presenting with AMI, and it slightly increased the number of patients admitted to the hospital who had no evidence of acute myocardial necrosis.

The introduction of new platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of certain patients with unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Treatment with these potent platelet inhibitors has been shown to improve patient outcomes prior to percutaneous intervention (PCI), following PCI, and even in the absence of PCI. In addition, there are data from clinical studies that support a time-dependence to the beneficial effects of platelet inhibitor therapy. Patients who are treated early—for example, in the emergency department (ED)—appear to have improved outcomes over those treated later. Platelet inhibitors have been used extensively in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the coronary care unit (CCU). In many institutions, however, their introduction and uptake in the ED has been slow. These agents are relatively expensive and have the potential to cause major bleeding complications. This review will examine the pathophysiology of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as it relates to the mechanism of action of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. The available GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors will be discussed including their indications, contraindications, doses, and mechanisms of action. Data from clinical studies supporting the use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors will be illustrated in the context of their applications in the ED. Finally, an algorithm for GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors in the ED will be presented.

Providing timely, high-quality, guideline-based care to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who present to the emergency department is critically dependent on cooperation, coordination, and communication between emergency medicine physicians and cardiologists. However, to achieve sustained improvement at the individual institution level, consistent implementation of quality improvement (QI) activities is needed. We describe a QI initiative for ACS care in the emergency setting that combined clinical education with a curriculum based on crew resource management (CRM) principles-a set of tools and techniques for communication, teamwork, and error avoidance used in the aviation industry and with proven applicability in the healthcare setting. Educational training sessions were open to multidisciplinary healthcare teams at 3 hospital sites, and participants were provided practical tools and resources to enhance communication, teamwork, and patient-centered care. Through patient chart reviews, participant surveys, and clinician interviews, baseline assessments of clinical performance measures and team communication-, logistics-, and skills-based efficiencies were performed and reported before the educational training was delivered at each QI site. Reviews of pre- and postinitiative participant surveys demonstrated improvement in knowledge and confidence in the delivery of appropriate and effective ACS care; however, reviews of pre- and postinitiative patient charts revealed limited process improvements. Altogether, this multicenter study of a continuing medical education program based on CRM principles was associated with improvements in provider knowledge and confidence regarding the delivery of appropriate ACS care, but had limited impact on clinical performance measures.

Objective: To determine the test performance characteristics of serial creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) mass measurements for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain and nondiagnostic ECGs. Methods: A prospective, observational test performance study was conducted. Hemodynamically stable patients aged ≥25 years with chest discomfort, but without ECGs diagnostic for MI, were enrolled at 7 university teaching hospitals. Presenting ECGs showing >1-mV ST-segment elevation in ≥2 electrically contiguous leads were considered diagnostic for MI; patients with diagnostic ECGs on presentation were excluded. Real-time, serial CK-MB mass levels were obtained using a rapid serum immunochernical assay at the time of ED presentation (0-hour) and 3 hours later (3-hour). The following testing schemes were evaluated for their sensitivity and specificity for detection of MI during patient evaluation in the ED: 1) an elevated (≥8 ng/mL) presenting CK-MB level; 2) an elevated presenting and/or 3-hour CK-MB level; 3) a significant increase (i.e., ≥3 ng/mL) within the range of normal limits for CK-MB concentrations during the 3-hour period (A CK-MB); andor 4) development of ST-segment elevation during the 3 hours (second ECG). Results: Of the 1,042 patients enrolled, 777 (74.6%) were hospitalized, including all 67 MI patients (8.6% of admissions). As a function of duration of time in the ED, the test performance characteristics of serial CK-MBs for MI (and cumulative data for the additional ECG) were: 0-hour CK-MB Plus 3-hour CK-MB Plus A CK-MB Plus Second ECG Sensitivity 38/67 = 57% 59/67 = 88% 62/67 = 93% 64/67 = 96% (95% CI) (44–69%) (78–95%) (83–98%) (88–99%) Specificity 9431976 = 97% 9351976 = 96% 9291976 = 95% 9311976 = 95% (95% CI) (95–98%) (94–97%) (94–96%) (94–97%) The 0-hour to 3-hour CK-MB positive and negative predictive values were 52% to 55% and 96% to 99%, respectively. The sensitivities of serial CK-MB results as a function of the interval following chest discomfort onset were: Interval Since Onset Sensitivity (95% CI) Interval Since Onset Sensitivity (95% CI) Less than 3 hours 38% (21–58%) 6 hours to 12 hours 92% (78–98%) 3 hours to 6 hours 75% (60–87%) More than 12 hours 100% (77–100%) Conclusion: Serial CK-MB monoclonal antibody mass measurements in the ED can identify MI patients with initially nondiagnostic ECGs. CK-MB sensitivity significantly increases over 3 hours of observation of stable chest discomfort patients in the ED; it also increases as a function of the total interval from onset until enzyme measurement.

The optimal anticoagulant for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) managed with an invasive strategy remains controversial.To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of otamixaban, a novel intravenous direct factor Xa inhibitor, with that of unfractionated heparin plus downstream eptifibatide in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing a planned early invasive strategy.Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled superiority trial that enrolled 13,229 patients with NSTE-ACS and a planned early invasive strategy, at 568 active sites in 55 countries and conducted between April 2010 and February 2013. A planned interim analysis was conducted for otamixaban dose selection.Eligible participants were randomized to otamixaban (bolus and infusion, at 1 of 2 doses) or unfractionated heparin plus, at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, eptifibatide. The otamixaban dose selected at interim analysis was an intravenous bolus of 0.080 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 0.140 mg/kg per hour.The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new myocardial infarction through day 7.Rates of the primary efficacy outcome were 5.5% (279 of 5105 patients) randomized to receive otamixaban and 5.7% (310 of 5466 patients) randomized to receive unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide (adjusted relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.85-1.16]; P = .93). There were no differences for the secondary end points, including procedural thrombotic complications. The primary safety outcome of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding through day 7 was increased by otamixaban (3.1% vs 1.5%; relative risk, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.63-2.78]; P .001). Results were consistent across prespecified subgroups.Otamixaban did not reduce the rate of ischemic events relative to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide but did increase bleeding. These findings do not support the use of otamixaban for patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing planned early percutaneous coronary intervention.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01076764.

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