Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:55:38.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and validation of a prediction rule for early discharge of low-risk emergency department patients with potential ischemic chest pain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Frank Xavier Scheuermeyer ,
Hubert Wong ,
Eugenia Yu ,
Barb Boychuk ,
Grant Innes ,
Eric Grafstein ,
Kenneth Gin  and
Jim Christenson
Frank Xavier Scheuermeyer*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Hubert Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Eugenia Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Barb Boychuk
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Grant Innes
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Eric Grafstein
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Foothills Hospital and the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
Kenneth Gin
Affiliation:
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Vancouver Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Jim Christenson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6; frankscheuermeyer@yahoo.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

Current guidelines emphasize that emergency department (ED) patients at low risk for potential ischemic chest pain cannot be discharged without extensive investigations or hospitalization to minimize the risk of missing acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We sought to derive and validate a prediction rule that permitted 20 to 30% of ED patients without ACS safely to be discharged within 2 hours without further provocative cardiac testing.

Methods:

This prospective cohort study enrolled 1,669 chest pain patients in two blocks in 2000–2003 (development cohort) and 2006 (validation cohort). The primary outcome was 30-day ACS diagnosis. A recursive partitioning model incorporated reliable and predictive cardiac risk factors, pain characteristics, electrocardiographic findings, and cardiac biomarker results.

Results:

In the derivation cohort, 165 of 763 patients (21.6%) had a 30-day ACS diagnosis. The derived prediction rule was 100.0% sensitive and 18.6% specific. In the validation cohort, 119 of 906 patients (13.1%) had ACS, and the prediction rule was 99.2% sensitive (95% CI 95.4–100.0) and 23.4% specific (95% CI 20.6–26.5). Patients have a very low ACS risk if arrival and 2-hour troponin levels are normal, the initial electrocardiogram is nonischemic, there is no history of ACS or nitrate use, age is < 50 years, and defined pain characteristics are met. The validation of the rule was limited by the lack of consistency in data capture, incomplete follow-up, and lack of evaluation of the accuracy, comfort, and clinical sensibility of this clinical decision rule.

Conclusion:

The Vancouver Chest Pain Rule may identify a cohort of ED chest pain patients who can be safely discharged within 2 hours without provocative cardiac testing. Further validation across other centres with consistent application and comprehensive and uniform follow-up of all eligible and enrolled patients, in addition to measuring and reporting the accuracy of and comfort level with applying the rule and the clinical sensibility, should be completed prior to adoption and implementation.

Keywords

cardiologyoutcomespatient safety
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 106 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2014

References

1. Pitts, SR, Niska, RW, Xu, J, Burt, CW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Emergency Department Summary. Natl Health Stat Report 2008 Aug 6;(7):1–38.Google Scholar
2. Goodacre, S, Cross, E, Arnold, J, et al. The health care burden of acute chest pain. Heart 2005;91:229–30, doi:10.1136/hrt.2003.027599.Google Scholar
3. Pope, JH, Aufderheide, TO, Ruthazer, R, et al. Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1163–70, doi:10.1056/NEJM200004203421603.Google Scholar
4. Christenson, JM, Innes, GD, McKnight, RD, et al. Safety and efficiency of emergency department assessment of chest discomfort. CMAJ 2004;170:1803–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Karcz, A, Korn, R, Burke, MC, et al. Malpractice claims against emergency physicians in Massachusetts: 1975–1993. Am J Emerg Med 1996;14:341–5, doi:10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90044-3.Google Scholar
6. Anderson, JL, Adams, CD, Antman, EM, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Available at: (accessed March 2, 2012).Google Scholar
7. Gibler, WB, Cannon, CP, Blomkalns, AL, et al. Practical implementation of the guidelines for unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the emergency department: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology (Subcommittee on Acute Cardiac Care), Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, and Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group, in collaboration with the Society of Chest Pain Centers. Circulation 2005;111:2699–710, doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000165556.44271.BE.Google Scholar
8. Amsterdam, E, Kirk, J, Bluemke, D, et al. Testing of low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;122:756–76, doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181ec61df.Google Scholar
9. Hess, EP, Brison, RJ, Perry, JJ, et al. Development of a clinical prediction rule for 30-day cardiac events in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Ann Emerg Med 2011 Aug 31. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
10. Selker, HP, Beshansky, JR, Griffith, JL, et al. Use of the acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument (ACI-TIPI) to assist with triage of patients with chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of acute cardiac ischemia. A multicenter, controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:845–55, doi:10.7326/0003-4819-129-11_Part_1-199812010-00002.Google Scholar
11. Fesmire, FM, Hughes, AD, Fody, EP, et al. The Erlanger chest pain evaluation protocol: a one-year experience with serial 12-lead ECG monitoring, two-hour delta serum marker measurements, and selective nuclear stress testing to identify and exclude acute coronary syndromes. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:584–94, doi:10.1067/mem.2002.129506.Google Scholar
12. Bassan, R, Pimenta, L, Scofano, M, Soares, JF. Accuracy of a neural diagnostic tree for the identification of acute coronary syndrome in patients with chest pain and no ST-segment elevation. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2004;3:72–8, doi:10.1097/01.hpc.0000128713.08115.54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Fernandez Portales, J, Perez Reyes, F, Garcia Robles, JA, et al. Risk stratification using combined ECG, clinical, and biochemical assessment in patients with chest pain without ST-segment evaluation. How long should we wait? Rev Esp Cardiol 2003;56:338–45.Google Scholar
14. Marsan, RJ, Shaver, KJ, Sease, KL, et al. Evaluation of a clinical decision rule for young adult patients with chest pain. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:26–31, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2005.tb01473.x.Google Scholar
15. Lyons, R, Morris, AC, Caesar, D, et al. Chest pain presenting to the emergency department—to stratify risk with GRACE or TIMI? Resuscitation 2007;74:90–3, doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.11.023.Google Scholar
16. Hess, EP, Perry, JJ, Calder, LA, et al. Prospective validation of a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Acad Emerg Med 2010;17:368–75, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00696.x.Google Scholar
17. Greene, J. The perils of low-risk chest pain: emergency physicians struggle to balance risk with overtesting. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56:25A-8A, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.021.Google Scholar
18. Pines, JM, Pollack, CV, Diercks, DB, et al. The association between emergency department crowding and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chest pain. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:17–25, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00364.x.Google Scholar
19. Diercks, DB, Roe, MT, Chen, AY, et al. Prolonged emergency department stays of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients are associated with worse adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management and increased adverse events. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:489–96, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Christenson, JM, Innes, GD, McKnight, RD, et al. A clinical prediction rule for early discharge of patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med 2006;47:1–10, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.08.007.Google Scholar
21. McGougan, CK, Christenson, JM, Innes, GD, Raboud, J. Emergency physicians’ attitudes toward a clinical prediction rule for the identification and early discharge of low risk patients with chest discomfort. CJEM 2001;3:89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Stiell, IG, Wells, GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437–47, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70309-4.Google Scholar
23. Laupacis, A, Sekar, N, Stiell, IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodologic standards. JAMA 1997;277:488–94, doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540300056034.Google Scholar
24. Innes, G, Murray, M, Grafstein, E. A consensus-based process to define standard national data elements for a Canadian emergency department information system. CJEM 2001;3:277–84.Google Scholar
25. Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, et al. Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: inter-rater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:155–9, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(99)70223-4.Google Scholar
26. Hollander, JE, Blomkalns, AL, Brogan, GX, et al. Standardized reporting guidelines for studies evaluating risk stratification of ED patients with potential acute coronary syndromes. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1331–40, doi:10.1197/j.aem.2004.08.033.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Myocardial infarction redefined—a consensus document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2000;21:1502–13, doi:10.1053/euhj.2000.2305.Google Scholar
28. Hess, EP, Thiruganasambandamoorthy, V, Wells, GA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical prediction rules to exclude acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department setting: a clinical review. CJEM 2008;10:373–83.Google Scholar
29. Hess, EP, Wells, GA, Jaffe, A, Stiell, IG. A study to derive a clinical decision rule for triage of emergency department patients with chest pain: design and methodology. BMC Emerg Med 2008;8:3, doi:10.1186/1471-227X-8-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Than, M, Cullen, L, Reid, CM, et al. A 2-h diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms in the Asia-Pacific region (ASPECT): a prospective observational validation study. Lancet 2011;377:1077–84, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60310-3.Google Scholar
31. Keller, T, Zeller, T, Peetz, D, et al. Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2009;361:868–77, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0903515.Google Scholar
32. Reichlin, T, Hochholzer, W, Bassetti, S, et al. Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sensitive troponin assays. N Engl J Med 2009;361:858–67, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0900428.Google Scholar
33. Keller, T, Zeller, T, Ojeda, F, et al. Serial changes in highly sensitive troponin I assay and early diagnosis of myocardial infarction. JAMA 2011;306:2684–93, doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1896.Google Scholar
34. Mills, NL, Churchhouse, A, Lee, KK, et al. Implementation of a sensitive troponin I assay and risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and death in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. JAMA 2011;305:1210–6, doi:10.1001/jama.2011.338.Google Scholar
35. Chang, AM, Shofer, FS, Tabas, JA, et al. Lack of association between left bundle-branch block and acute myocardial infarction in symptomatic ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 2009;27:916–21, doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2008.07.007.Google Scholar
36. Canto, JG, Shlipak, MG, Rodgers, W, et al. Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and mortality among patients with myocardial infarction presenting without chest pain. JAMA 2000;283:3223–9, doi:10.1001/jama.283.24.3223.Google Scholar