Probability Stratification and Systematic Diagnostic Approach for Chest Pain Patients in the Emergency Department :

The presence of left bundle-branch block on the electrocardiogram may conceal the changes of acute myocardial infarction, which can delay both its recognition and treatment. We tested electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of acute infarction in the presence of left bundle-branch block. The base-line electrocardiograms of patients enrolled in the GUSTO-1 (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) trial who had left bundle-branch block and acute myocardial infarction confirmed by enzyme studies were blindly compared with the electrocardiograms of control patients who had chronic coronary artery disease and left bundle-branch block. The electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of infarction were then tested in an independent sample of patients presenting with acute chest pain and left bundle-branch block. Of 26,003 North American patients, 131 (0.5 percent) with acute myocardial infarction had left bundle-branch block. The three electrocardiographic criteria with independent value in the diagnosis of acute infarction in these patients were an ST-segment elevation of 1 mm or more that was concordant with (in the same direction as) the QRS complex; ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more in lead V1, V2, or V3; and ST-segment elevation of 5 mm or more that was disconcordant with (in the opposite direction from) the QRS complex. We used these three criteria in a multivariate model to develop a scoring system (0 to 10), which allowed a highly specific diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction to be made. We developed and validated a clinical prediction rule based on a set of electrocardiographic criteria for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with chest pain and left bundle-branch block. The use of these criteria, which are based on simple ST-segment changes, may help identify patients with acute myocardial infarction, who can then receive appropriate treatment.

We tested the hypothesis that an emergency department-based protocol for rapidly ruling out myocardial ischemia would reduce hospital time and expense but maintain diagnostic accuracy. Patients with a missed diagnosis of myocardial infarction have a high mortality rate; however, providing routine hospital care to low risk patients may not be time- or cost-effective. One hundred low risk patients were entered into the study and randomized either to an emergency department-based rapid rule-out protocol (n = 50) or to routine hospital care (n = 50). Patients receiving routine care were managed by their attending physicians. The rapid protocol included serum enzyme testing at 0, 3, 6 and 9h, serial electrocardiograms with continuous ST segment monitoring and, if results were negative, a predischarge graded exercise test. Study patients were also compared with 160 historical control subjects. Myocardial infarction or unstable angina occurred in 6% of patients within 30 days; no diagnoses were missed. By intention to treat analysis (n = 50 in each group), the hospital stay was shorter and charges were lower with the rapid protocol than with routine care (p = 0.001). Among patients in whom ischemia was ruled out, those assigned to the rapid protocol had a shorter hospital stay (median 11.9 vs. 22.8 h, p = 0.0001) and lower initial ($893 vs $1,349, p = 0.0001) and 30-day ($898 vs. $1,522, p = 0.0001) hospital charges than did patients given routine care. In historical control subjects, the hospital stay was longer (median 34.5 h, p = 0.001 vs. either group) and charges greater (median $2,063, p = 0.001, vs rapid protocol, p = 0.02, vs. routine care group). In low risk patients who present to the emergency department with chest pain, the rapid protocol ruled out myocardial infarction and unstable angina more quickly and cost-effectively than did routine hospital care.

Nearly half of patients hospitalized with unstable angina eventually receive a non-cardiac-related diagnosis, yet 5 percent of patients with myocardial infarction are inappropriately discharged from the emergency department. We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and cost of admission to a chest-pain observation unit (CPU) located in the emergency department for such patients. We performed a community-based, prospective, randomized trial of the safety, efficacy, and cost of admission to a CPU as compared with those of regular hospital admission for patients with unstable angina who were considered to be at intermediate risk for cardiovascular events in the short term. A total of 424 eligible patients were randomly assigned to routine hospital admission (a monitored bed under the care of the cardiology service) or admission to the CPU (where patients were cared for according to a strict protocol including aspirin, heparin, continuous ST-segment monitoring, determination of creatine kinase isoenzyme levels, six hours of observation, and a study of cardiac function). The CPU was managed by the emergency department staff. Patients whose test results were negative were discharged, and the others were hospitalized. Primary outcomes (nonfatal myocardial infarction, death, acute congestive heart failure, stroke, or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) and use of resources were compared between the two groups. The 212 patients in the hospital-admission group had 15 primary events (13 myocardial infarctions and 2 cases of congestive heart failure), and the 212 patients in the CPU group had 7 events (5 myocardial infarctions, 1 death from cardiovascular causes, and 1 case of congestive heart failure). There was no significant difference in the rate of cardiac events between the two groups (odds ratio for the CPU group as compared with the hospital-admission group, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.20 to 1.24). No primary events occurred among the 97 patients who were assigned to the CPU and discharged. Resource use during the first six months was greater among patients assigned to hospital admission than among those assigned to the CPU (P<0.01 by the rank-sum test). A CPU located in the emergency department can be a safe, effective, and cost-saving means of ensuring that patients with unstable angina who are considered to be at intermediate risk of cardiovascular events receive appropriate care.