Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Introduction: The HEART Pathway is a diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain that are safe for early discharge. This protocol has been shown to significantly decrease health care resource utilization compared with usual care. However, the impact of the HEART Pathway on the cost of care has yet to be reported., Methods and Results: We performed a cost analysis of patients enrolled in the HEART Pathway trial, which randomized participants to either usual care or the HEART Pathway protocol. For low-risk patients, the HEART Pathway recommended early discharge from the emergency department without further testing. We compared index visit cost, cost at 30 days, and cardiac-related health care cost at 30 days between the 2 treatment arms. Costs for each patient included facility and professional costs. Cost at 30 days included total inpatient and outpatient costs, including the index encounter, regardless of etiology. Cardiac-related health care cost at 30 days included the index encounter and costs adjudicated to be cardiac-related within that period. Two hundred seventy of the 282 patients enrolled in the trial had cost data available for analysis. There was a significant reduction in cost for the HEART Pathway group at 30 days (median cost savings of $216 per individual), which was most evident in low-risk (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction score of 0-1) patients (median savings of $253 per patient) and driven primarily by lower cardiac diagnostic costs in the HEART Pathway group., Conclusions: Using the HEART Pathway as a decision aid for patients with undifferentiated chest pain resulted in significant cost savings., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)