Outcome of Chest Pain Patients Discharged From a French Emergency Department: A 60-day Prospective Study

Comparison of usual care and the HEART score for effectively and safely discharging patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: would the score always help?

Background

Triage decisions for chest pain patients receiving usual care are based on a dynamic and comprehensive strategy performed in the physician's mind. It remains controversial whether simple, structured risk tools can surpass real, complex judgments.

Hypothesis

The potentially used History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score would help identify low‐risk patients for discharge.

Methods

Patients with acute, non‐traumatic chest pain managed according to usual care were consecutively enrolled in a tertiary university hospital in China from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included death, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant coronary stenosis (>50%) within 30 days. We compared the efficacy and safety of usual care and the potentially used HEART score in this population.

Results

Of 2185 patients analyzed, 926 (42.4%) patients were directly discharged by usual care, whereas HEART≤3 would have identified 524 (24.0%) patients as low‐risk (P < .001). The MACE rate in discharged patients was 2.2% (20/926) and would have been 5.2% (27/524) in those with HEART≤3 (P = .002). For discharged patients, the MACE rates in HEART≤3 vs HEART>3 groups were not significantly different (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = .225). Negative predictive value (NPV) was higher with usual care than with the HEART score (P = .003), but sensitivity was similar. For 340 patients with serial troponins, usual care was superior to the potentially used HEART score in regard to efficacy.

Conclusions

At this institution, usual care identified many more patients for discharge than the HEART score would have without apparently different outcomes in discharged patients with lower vs higher HEART scores. The HEART score would not appear to provide helpful risk stratification.

Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: Clinical Reasoning in the Management of a Patient Referred to Physical Therapy for Costochondritis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Chest pain, a frequent complaint for seeking medical care, is often attributed to musculoskeletal pathology. Costochondritis is a common disorder presenting as chest pain. Initial physical therapist examination emphasizes red flag screening. Reexamination throughout the episode of care is critical, particularly when patients are not progressing and/or in the presence of complex pain presentations. The purpose of this case report is to describe the clinical reasoning process in the management of a patient referred to physical therapy with a medical diagnosis of costochondritis.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 59-year-old woman presented with a 5-month history of left-sided chest pain that had progressed to include the cervical and shoulder regions. She reported multiple psychosocial stressors; a depression screen was positive. She reported a history of asthma and smoking and improvement in recent fatigue, coughing, dyspnea, and sweating. At the initial visit, shoulder, cervical, and thoracic active and passive range of motion and joint mobility testing reproduced her pain. Allodynia was present throughout the painful areas in the left upper quarter.

OUTCOMES

The patient demonstrated improvement over 30 days (4 visits). On her fifth visit (day 35), she reported an exacerbation of her chest and upper extremity pain and noted increased fatigue, sweating, dyspnea, and loss of appetite. Even though her pain was again reproduced with musculoskeletal testing, the physical therapist contacted the patient's physician regarding the change in presentation. A subsequent chest computed tomography scan revealed a non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma.

DISCUSSION

Cancer can masquerade as a musculoskeletal condition. This case highlights the importance of screening, clinical reasoning, and communication throughout the episode of care, particularly in the presence of chronic pain and psychosocial stressors.

Evaluation and management of patients with acute chest pain in China (EMPACT): protocol for a prospective, multicentre registry study

INTRODUCTION

Acute chest pain represents a major healthcare burden in emergency departments (ED) throughout the world. Among these patients, rapidly determining whether an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is evolving remains difficult. In China, there are limited data correlating the baseline characteristics, evaluation and management of ED patients with acute chest pain and ACS-related symptoms with clinical outcomes. Nor has there been an evaluation of outcomes at different levels of hospitals. The Evaluation and Management of Patients with Acute ChesT pain in China (EMPACT) study will address this evidence gap through a regional representative prospective registry.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Twenty-two public hospitals with ED in Shandong province have been selected based on a stratified random sampling approach. A total of 10 000 patients with acute chest pain or suspected ACS presenting to the ED will be consecutively enrolled from January 2016 to September 2017. Episodes of care will be evaluated for key performance measures such as the time to first ECG, receipt of troponin testing, receipt of reperfusion therapy for ST segment elevation ACS and provision of angiography for troponin-positive patients. All patients will be assessed for the composite endpoint of adjudicated major adverse cardiac events in 30 days after presentation, including death from all causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularisation, stroke, cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. The secondary outcomes include revisit to ED and rehospitalisation within 30 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained at all participating centres. The registry is the first attempt to comprehensively evaluate the current emergency care of acute chest pain from a regional representative sample in China. Findings will allow new opportunities to facilitate the clinical quality improvements and ultimately reduce the mortality in patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02536677; Pre-results.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016

INTRODUCTION

The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the: diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS; provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS; administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual's needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.

Predictors of Adverse Outcomes of Patients with Chest Pain and Primary Diagnosis of Non-Cardiac Pain at the Time of Discharge from Emergency Department: A 30-Days Prospective Study

Background

Chest pain is a common symptom for referring patients to emergency departments (ED). Among those referred, some are admitted to hospitals with a definite or tentative diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome and some are discharged with primary diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain. This study aimed at investigating 30 days' adverse outcomes of patients discharged from ED of a major heart center in Iran.

Methods

Out of 1638 chest pain admissions to the centre during 2010–2011, 962 patients (mean age= 50.9±15.9 years) who were admitted to Afshar Heart Center's ED with chest pain as their chief complaint, and discharged with primary diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain, were followed for any adverse cardiac events 30 days post discharge. The adverse events were: unstable angina, non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), coronary revascularization (percutaneous angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting) and death.

Results

Adverse cardiac events, including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), revascularization and death were observed in 30 patients (3.1%) including: acute MI n=5 (0.5%, sudden cardiac death inn=1 (0.1%, coronary revascularization in n=8 (0.8%) and hospitalization due to unstable angina/NSTEMI in n=16 (1–7%). Adverse events were seen more frequently in patients with history of hypertension, dyslipidemia and previous coronary artery disease. In univariate analysis, the chance of postdischarge adverse cardiac events was higher in patients with hypertension (OR=9.36, CI=3.24–27.03), previous coronary artery disease (OR= 3.8, CI=1.78–8.0), dyslipidemia (OR=3.5, CI=1.7–7.38) and discharge against medical advice (OR=2.85, CI= 1.37–5.91).

Conclusion

The extent of adverse cardiac events in patients with a primary diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain within 30 days of discharge was significant, mandating nation-wide registries to provide better care for these patients.

Short- and Long-Term Prognostic Utility of the HEART Score in Patients Evaluated in the Emergency Department for Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The HEART score is a risk-stratification tool that was developed and validated for patients evaluated for possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED). We sought to determine the short-term and long-term prognostic utility of the HEART score.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of 947 patients evaluated for possible ACS in the ED in 1999 was conducted. Patients were followed for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days: death, acute myocardial infarction, or revascularization procedure. All-cause mortality was assessed at 5 years. The HEART score was compared with the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score.

RESULTS

At 30 days, 14% (135/947) of patients had an MACE: 48 deaths (5%), 84 acute myocardial infarctions (9%), and 48 (5%) revascularization procedures. The MACE rate in patients with HEART score ≤3 was 0.6% (1/175) involving a revascularization procedure, 9.5% (53/557) in patients with HEART score between 4 and 6, and 38% (81/215) with HEART score ≥7. The C-statistic for the HEART score was 0.82 and 0.68 for the TIMI score for predicting 30-day MACE (P < 0.05). Patients with HEART score ≤3 had lower 5-year mortality rate compared with those with TIMI score of 0 (10.6% vs. 20.5%, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The HEART score is a valuable risk-stratification tool in predicting not only short-term MACE but also long-term mortality in patients evaluated for possible ACS in the ED. The HEART score had a superior prognostic value compared with the TIMI score.