Critical pathways in cardiology
-
McKesson's Interqual criteria are one of the medical screening criteria that are widely used in emergency departments (EDs) to determine if patients qualify for observation or inpatient admission. Chronic heart failure (CHF) is one of the most common yet severe cardiovascular diseases seen in the ED with a relatively higher admission rate. This study is to evaluate the accuracy of Interqual criteria in determining observation versus hospitalization need in CHF patients. ⋯ Only one variable (blood urea nitrogen, ≥30 mg/dL; odds ratio, 2.44) from Interqual criteria had reached statistical significant difference between observation and hospitalization groups. Our results showed that based on the initial review at ED, clinical variables from Interqual criteria did not appear to help accurately predict the level of care in CHF patient in our patient population. Other clinical variables may need to be added in the criteria for better prediction.
-
The Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (SCPC) accredits hospital acute coronary syndrome management. The influence of accreditation on the subset of patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown. Our purpose was to describe the association between SCPC accreditation and hospital quality metric performance among AMI patients enrolled in ACTION Registry-GWTG (ACTION-GWTG). This program is a voluntary registry that receives self-reported hospital AMI quality metrics data and provides quarterly feedback to 487 US hospitals. ⋯ All hospitals had high rates of quality metric compliance and finished with similar overall AMI performance composite scores after 1 year.
-
Observational Study
Prospective evaluation of a simplified risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain in an emergency department observation unit.
The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score has been validated as a risk stratification tool in the emergency department (ED) setting, but certain aspects of the scoring system may not be applicable when applied to patients with chest pain selected for ED observation unit (EDOU) stay. We evaluated a simplified, 3-point risk stratification tool for patients in EDOU, which we termed the CARdiac score: Coronary disease [previous myocardial infarction (MI), stent, or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)], Age (65 years or older), and Risk factors (at least 3 of 5 cardiac risk factors). ⋯ The CARdiac score may prove to be a simple tool for risk stratification of patients with chest pain in an EDOU. Patients at moderate risk by CARdiac score may be appropriate for more intensive evaluation in the EDOU or consideration for inpatient admission rather than EDOU placement.
-
Observational Study
HEART score: a simple and useful tool that may lower the proportion of chest pain patients who are admitted.
Evaluation of patients with chest pain in the emergency department is challenging. HEART score can be easily used and includes history, electrocardiogram (ECG), age, risk factors, and troponin. The aims were to validate this score and estimate to what extent it can reduce the admission rate. ⋯ In conclusion, HEART score may be a useful tool for evaluation of patients with chest pain and identify a low-risk group in which admission and further investigations may not be necessary. However, an even simpler score, including only history, troponin level, and ECG findings, may be sufficient.
-
The HEART score for the early risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain contains 5 elements: history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin. It has been validated in The Netherlands. The purpose of this investigation was to perform an external validation of the HEART score in an Asia-Pacific population. ⋯ Utilization of the HEART score provided excellent determination of risk for 30-day MACE, comparing well with the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score. This study externally validates previous findings that HEART is a powerful clinical tool in this setting. It quickly identifies both a large proportion of low-risk patients, in whom early discharge without additional testing goes with a risk of MACE of only 1.7%, and high-risk patients who are potential candidates for early invasive strategies.