Search

The HEART Pathway is widely used for chest pain risk stratification but has yet to be optimized for high sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) assays.We conducted a secondary analysis of STOP-CP, a prospective cohort study enrolling adult ED patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome at 8 sites in the United States (US). Patients had a 0- and 1-hour hs-cTnT measured and a HEAR score completed. A derivation set consisting of 729 randomly selected participants was used to derive a hs-cTnT HEART Pathway with rule-out, observation, and rule-in groups for 30-day cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI). Optimal baseline and 1-hour troponin cutoffs were selected using generalized cross validation to achieve a negative predictive value (NPV)99% for rule out and positive predictive value (PPV)60% or maximum Youden index for rule-in. Optimal 0-1-hour delta values were derived using generalized cross validation to maximize the NPV for the rule-out group and PPV for the rule-in group. The hs-cTnT HEART Pathway performance was validated in the remaining cohort (n = 723).Among the 1452 patients, 30-day cardiac death or MI occurred in 12.7% (184/1452). Within the derivation cohort the optimal hs-cTnT HEART Pathway classified 36.5% (266/729) into the rule-out group, yielding a NPV of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.2-100) for 30-day cardiac death or MI. The rule-in group included 15.4% (112/729) with a PPV of 55.4% (95% CI: 46.2-64.6). In the validation cohort, the hs-cTnT HEART Pathway ruled-out 37.6% (272/723), of which 2 had 30-day cardiac death or MI, yielding a NPV of 99.3% (95% CI: 98.3-100). The rule-in group included 14.5% (105/723), yielding a PPV of 57.1% (95% CI: 47.7-66.6).A novel hs-cTnT HEART Pathway with serial 0- and 1-hour hs-cTnT measures has high NPV and moderate PPV for 30-day cardiac death or MI.

Metabolic syndrome is a constellation of risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease and increased all-cause mortality. Data examining the prevalence of metabolic syndrome among emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians are limited.We conducted a cross-sectional study of EMS clinicians and firefighters from three fire departments with transport-capable EMS divisions. Data were collected from compulsory annual physical exams for 2021 that included age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and hemoglobin A1c level. These data were used to determine the prevalence of meeting metabolic syndrome criteria. We calculated descriptive statistics of demographics, anthropometrics, and metabolic syndrome criteria for EMS clinicians and firefighters. We used chi-square tests to compare the proportion of EMS clinicians and firefighters meeting criteria for the whole group and among age groups of40 years old, 40 to 59 years old, and ≥60 years old. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of meeting criteria in EMS clinicians compared to firefighters, adjusted for age, sex, race, and BMI.We reviewed data for 65 EMS clinicians and 239 firefighters. For the combined cohort, 13.2% (40/304) were female and 95.1% (289/304) were White. The median age for EMS clinicians was 34 years versus 45 years in firefighters (p 0.0001). Metabolic syndrome criteria were met in 27.3% (83/304) of the entire group. The prevalence of meeting criteria among EMS clinicians and firefighters was 33.9% (22/65) and 25.5% (61/239), respectively (p = 0.18). Of the participants who were younger than age 40, 36.6% (15/41) of EMS clinicians versus 9.1% (7/74) of firefighters met criteria for metabolic syndrome (p 0.001). EMS clinicians had significantly higher odds of meeting criteria [OR 4.62 (p = 0.001)] compared to firefighters when adjusted for age, sex, race, and BMI.EMS clinicians had a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome at an early age, and had a higher adjusted odds of having metabolic syndrome compared to firefighters.

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

BackgroundThe diagnostic performance of the high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour algorithm in sex and race subgroups is unclear, particularly in U.S. Emergency Department (ED) patients.MethodsA pre-planned subgroup analysis of the STOP-CP cohort study was conducted. Participants with 0- and 1-hour hs-cTnT measures (Roche Diagnostics; Basel, Switzerland), prospectively enrolled at eight U.S. EDs from 1/2017-9/2018, were stratified into rule-out, observation, and rule-in zones using the hs-cTnT ESC 0/1 algorithm. The primary outcome was adjudicated 30-day cardiac death or MI. Rates of patient stratification to each ESC 0/1 zone and the proportion with 30-day cardiac death or MI in each zone were compared between subgroups with Fisher’s-exact tests. The negative predictive value (NPV) of the ESC 0/1 rule-out zone for 30-day cardiac death or MI was calculated and compared between subgroups using Fisher’s exact tests.ResultsOf the 1422 patients enrolled, 54.2% (770/1422) were male and 58.1% (826/1422) white with a mean age of 57.6 ± 12.8 years. At 30 days, cardiac death or MI occurred in 12.9% (183/1422) of participants. The ESC 0/1-h algorithm ruled-out more women than men [66.9% (436/652) vs 50.0% (385/770); pConclusionsThe ESC 0/1-h hs-cTnT algorithm ruled-out more women than men, but achieved similar NPV for 30-day cardiac death or MI in all subgroups. NPVs Trial RegistrationHigh-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T to Optimize Chest Pain Risk Stratification (STOP-CP; ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02984436;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02984436)What is KnownThe European Society of Cardiology high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) 0/1-hour algorithm has been validated as a tool to rule-out myocardial infarction (MI).Evaluations of its performance differences based on sex and race are limited.What the Study AddsIn this multisite U.S. cohort study of 1422 adults, the high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) ESC 0/1-hour algorithm had a similar NPV in men vs women and white vs non-white patients but did not achieve ≥99% NPV for 30-day cardiac death or MI in any subgroup.Emergency providers should be aware of the potential limitations of using the ESC 0/1-hour hs-cTnT algorithm for risk stratification because it may not satisfactorily exclude 30-day cardiac death or MI in any subgroup of ED patients (men, women, white patients, or non-white patients) with acute chest pain.

Rural patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may be less likely to receive prompt reperfusion therapy. This study's primary objective was to compare rural versus urban time intervals among a national cohort of prehospital patients with STEMI.The ESO Data Collaborative (Austin, TX), containing records from 1,366 emergency medical services agencies, was queried for adult 9-1-1 responses with suspected STEMI from 1/1/2018-12/31/2019. The scene address for each encounter was classified as either urban or rural using the 2010 US Census Urban Area Zip Code Tabulation Area relationship. The primary outcome was total EMS interval (9-1-1 call to hospital arrival); a key secondary outcome was the proportion of responses that had EMS intervals under 60 minutes. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether rural versus urban differences in interval outcomes occurred when adjusting for loaded mileage (distance from scene to hospital) and patient and clinical encounter characteristics.Of 15,915,027 adult 9-1-1 transports, 23,655 records with suspected STEMI were included in the analysis. Most responses (91.6%, n = 21,661) occurred in urban settings. Median EMS interval was 37.6 minutes (IQR 30.0-48.0) in urban settings compared to 57.0 minutes (IQR 46.5-70.7) in rural settings (p 0.01). Urban responses more frequently had EMS intervals60 minutes (89.5%, n = 19,130), compared to rural responses (55.5%, n = 1,100, p 0.01). After adjusting for loaded mileage, age, sex, race/ethnicity, abnormal vital signs, pain assessment, aspirin administration, and IV/IO attempt, rural location was associated with a 5.8 (95%CI 4.2-7.4) minute longer EMS interval than urban, and rural location was associated with a reduced chance of achieving EMS interval60 minutes (OR 0.40; 95%CI 0.33-0.49) as compared to urban location.In this large national sample, rural location was associated with significantly longer EMS interval for patients with suspected STEMI, even after accounting for loaded mileage.

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

Introduction: Chest pain is a common reason for ambulance transport. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE) risk assessments, such as history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors (HEAR); Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS); Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC); and revised Geneva score, are well validated for emergency department (ED) use but have not been translated to the prehospital setting. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the 1) prehospital completion rate and 2) inter-rater reliability of chest pain risk assessments. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study in two emergency medical services (EMS) agencies (April 18, 2018 – January 2, 2019). Adults with acute, non-traumatic chest pain without ST-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable vital signs were accrued. Paramedics were trained to use the HEAR, EDACS, PERC, and revised Geneva score assessments. A subset of patients (a priori goal of N = 250) also had the four risk assessments completed by their treating clinicians in the ED, who were blinded to the EMS risk assessments. Outcomes were 1) risk assessments completion rate and 2) inter-rater reliability between EMS and ED assessments. An a priori goal for completion rate was set as >75%. We computed kappa with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each risk assessment as a measure of inter-rater reliability. Acceptable agreement was defined a priori as kappa ≥ 0.60. Results: During the study period, 837 patients with acute chest pain were accrued. The median age was 54 years, interquartile range 43-66, with 53% female and 51% Black. Completion rates for each risk assessment were above goal: the HEAR score was completed on 95.1% (796/837), EDACS on 92.0% (770/837), PERC on 89.4% (748/837), and revised Geneva score on 90.7% (759/837) of patients. We assessed agreement in a subgroup of 260 patients. The HEAR score had a kappa of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.41- 0.61); EDACS was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.49-0.72); PERC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.81); and revised Geneva score was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.39-0.62). Conclusion: The completion rate of risk assessments for ACS and PE was high for prehospital field personnel. The PERC and EDACS both demonstrated acceptable agreement between paramedics and clinicians in the ED, although assessments with better agreement are likely needed.

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.

The History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, and Risk factor (HEAR) and History and ECG-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (HE-MACS) risk scores can risk stratify chest pain patients without troponin measures. The objective of this study was to determine if either risk score could achieve the ≥99% negative predictive value (NPV) required to rule out major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) at 30 days or the ≥50% positive predictive value (PPV) indicative of a patient possibly needing interventional cardiology.We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of the prospective multisite PARAHEART (Among the PARAHEART and RESCUE cohorts, 30-day MACE occurred in 18.8% (87/462) and 6.9% (53/767) of patients, respectively. In PARAHEART, 7.8% (36/462) were very low risk by HEAR score vs. 7.8% (36/462) by HE-MACS (In two prehospital chest pain cohorts, neither the HEAR score nor HE-MACS achieved sufficient NPV or PPV to rule out or rule in 30-day MACE.

The 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/American Society of Echocardiography/American College of Chest Physicians/Society for Academic Emergency Medicine/Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography/Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance guidelines for the evaluation and diagnosis of acute chest pain make important recommendations that include the recognition of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) as the preferred biomarker, endorsement of 99th percentile upper reference limits to define myocardial injury, and the use of clinical decision pathways, as well as acknowledgment of the uniqueness of women and other patient subsets. Details on how to integrate hs-cTn into clinical practice are less extensively addressed. Clinicians should be aware of some of the analytical aspects related to hs-cTn assays regarding the limit of detection and the limit of quantitation and how they are used clinically, especially for the single sample strategy to rule out acute myocardial infarction. Likewise, it is important for clinicians to understand issues related to the derivation of the 99th percentile upper reference limit; the value of sex-specific 99th percentile upper reference limits; how to use changing concentrations (deltas) to facilitate diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, including the differentiation of acute from chronic myocardial injury; and how to best integrate the use of hs-cTn with clinical decision pathways. With the use of hs-cTn, conditions such as type 2 myocardial infarction become more common, whereas others such as unstable angina become less frequent but still occur. Sections relating to these issues are included.

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

ImportanceThe European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour algorithm is a validated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) protocol for emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. However, limited data exist regarding its performance in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD; prior myocardial infarction [MI], coronary revascularization, or ≥70% coronary stenosis).ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm for 30-day cardiac death or MI among patients with and without known CAD and determine if the algorithm could achieve the negative predictive value rule-out threshold of 99% or higher.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a preplanned subgroup analysis of the STOP-CP prospective multisite cohort study, which was conducted from January 25, 2017, through September 6, 2018, at 8 emergency departments in the US. Patients 21 years or older with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation on initial electrocardiogram were included. Analysis took place between February and December 2022.Interventions/ExposuresParticipants with 0- and 1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measures were stratified into rule-out, observation, and rule-in zones using the ESC 0/1-hour hs-cTnT algorithm.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCardiac death or MI at 30 days determined by expert adjudicators.ResultsDuring the study period, 1430 patients were accrued. In the cohort, 775 individuals (54.2%) were male, 826 (57.8%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 57.6 (12.8) years. At 30 days, cardiac death or MI occurred in 183 participants (12.8%). Known CAD was present in 449 (31.4%). Among patients with known CAD, the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm classified 178 of 449 (39.6%) into the rule-out zone compared with 648 of 981 (66.1%) without CAD (P P P = .04).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with known CAD, the ESC 0/1-hour hs-cTnT algorithm was unable to safely exclude 30-day cardiac death or MI. This suggests that clinicians should be cautious if using the algorithm in patients with known CAD. The negative predictive value was significantly higher in patients without a history of CAD but remained less than 99%.

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.

The HEART Pathway is a validated protocol for risk stratifying emergency department (ED) patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Its performance in different age groups is unknown. The objective of this study is to evaluate its safety and effectiveness among older adults.A pre-planned subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway implementation study was conducted. This prospective interrupted time series accrued adult ED patients with possible ACS who were without ST-elevation across three US sites from 11/2013-01/2016. After implementation, providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to stratify patients as low-risk or non-low-risk. Patients were classified as older adults (≥65 years), middle-aged (46-64 years), and young (21-45 years). Primary safety and effectiveness outcomes were 30-day death or MI and hospitalization at 30 days, determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. Fisher's exact test compared low-risk proportions between groups. Sensitivity for 30-day death or MI and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for hospitalization and objective cardiac testing were calculated.The HEART Pathway implementation study accrued 8474 patients, of which 26.9% (2281/8474) were older adults, 45.5% (3862/8474) middle-aged, and 27.5% (2331/8474) were young. The HEART Pathway identified 7.4% (97/1303) of older adults, 32.0% (683/2131) of middle-aged, and 51.4% (681/1326) of young patients as low-risk (p 0.001). The HEART Pathway was 98.8% (95% CI 97.1-100) sensitive for 30-day death or MI among older adults. Following implementation, the rate of 30-day hospitalization was similar among older adults (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00-1.55) and cardiac testing increased (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51).The HEART Pathway identified fewer older adults as low-risk and did not decrease hospitalizations in this age group.

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

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

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

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

Despite negative troponins and nonischemic electrocardiograms (ECGs), patients at moderate risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are frequently admitted. The objective of this study was to describe the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate in moderate-risk patients and how it differs based on history of coronary artery disease (CAD).A secondary analysis of the HEART Pathway implementation study was conducted. This prospective interrupted time-series study accrued adults with possible ACS from three sites (November 2013-January 2016). This analysis excluded low-risk patients determined by emergency providers' HEART Pathway assessments. Non-low-risk patients were further classified as high risk, based on elevated troponin measures or ischemic ECG findings or as moderate risk, based on HEAR score ≥ 4, negative troponin measures, and a nonischemic ECG. Moderate-risk patients were then stratified by the presence or absence of prior CAD (MI, revascularization, or ≥70% coronary stenosis). MACE (death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization) at 30 days was determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. MACE rates were compared among groups using a chi-square test and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated.Among 4,550 patients with HEART Pathway assessments, 24.8% (1,130/4,550) were high risk and 37.7% (1715/4550) were moderate risk. MACE at 30 days occurred in 3.1% (53/1,715; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3% to 4.0%) of moderate-risk patients. Among moderate-risk patients, MACE occurred in 7.1% (36/508, 95% CI = 5.1% to 9.8%) of patients with known CAD versus 1.4% (17/1,207, 95% CI = 0.9% to 2.3%) in patients without known prior CAD (p 0.0001). The negative LR for 30-day MACE among moderate-risk patients without prior CAD was 0.08 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.12).MACE rates at 30 days were low among moderate-risk patients but were significantly higher among those with prior CAD.

BackgroundPrior studies suggest monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) may be useful for risk stratifying ED patients with chest pain. We hypothesise that MCP-1 will be predictive of 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in non-low-risk patients.MethodsA case–control study was nested within a prospective multicentre cohort (STOP-CP), which enrolled adult patients being evaluated for acute coronary syndrome at eight US EDs from 25 January 2017 to 06 September 2018. Patients with a History, ECG, Age, and Risk factor score (HEAR score) ≥4 or coronary artery disease (CAD), a non-ischaemic ECG, and non-elevated contemporary troponins at 0 and 3 hours were included. Cases were patients with 90-day MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction or revascularisation). Controls were patients without MACE selected with frequency matching using age, sex, race, and HEAR score or the presence of CAD. Serum MCP-1 was measured. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for cut-off points of 194 pg/mL, 200 pg/mL, 238 pg/mL and 281 pg/mL. Logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, and HEAR score/presence of CAD was used to determine the association between MCP-1 and 90-day MACE. A separate logistic model also included high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTnT).ResultsAmong 40 cases and 179 controls, there was no difference in age (p=0.90), sex (p=1.00), race (p=0.85), or HEAR score/presence of CAD (p=0.89). MCP-1 was similar in cases (median 191.9 pg/mL, IQR: 161.8–260.1) and controls (median 196.6 pg/mL, IQR: 163.0–261.1) (p=0.48). At a cut-off point of 194 pg/mL, MCP-1 was 50.0% (95% CI 33.8% to 66.2%) sensitive and 46.9% (95% CI 39.4% to 54.5%) specific for 90-day MACE. After adjusting for covariates, MCP-1 was not associated with 90-day MACE at any cut-off point (at 194 pg/mL, OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.79)). When including hs-cTnT in the model, MCP-1 was not associated with 90-day MACE at any cut-off point (at 194 pg/mL, OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.73)).ConclusionMCP-1 is not predictive of 90-day MACE in patients with non-low-risk chest pain.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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