ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2015
Performance of the 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol within the American College of Radiology Imaging Network PA 4005 cohort.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chest Pain Risk Stratification: A Comparison of the 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (ADAPT) and the HEART Pathway.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2016Trial
- Characterizing pre-discharge interventions to reduce length of stay for older adults: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Clinical decision aids for chest pain in the emergency department: identifying low-risk patients.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe 2-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADAPT) is a decision rule designed to identify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge. Previous studies in the Asia-Pacific region demonstrated high sensitivity (97.9% to 99.7%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of ADAPT for risk stratification in a cohort of U.S. ED patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsA secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) PA 4005 trial was conducted. This trial enrolled 1,369 patients at least 30 years old with symptoms suggestive of ACS. All data elements were collected prospectively at the time of enrollment. Each patient was classified as low risk or at risk by ADAPT. Early discharge rate and sensitivity for MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary revascularization at 30 days, were calculated.
resultsOf 1,140 patients with complete biomarker data, MACE occurred in 31 patients (2.7%). Among 551 of the 1,140 (48.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.4% to 51.3%), ADAPT identified for early discharge; five of the 551 (0.9%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 2.1%) had MACE at 30 days. ADAPT was 83.9% (95% CI = 66.3% to 94.5%) sensitive, identifying 26 of 31 patients with MACE. Of the five patients identified for early discharge by ADAPT with MACE, there were no deaths, one patient with MI, and five with revascularizations.
conclusionsIn this first North American application of the ADAPT strategy, sensitivity for MACE within 30 days was 83.9%. One missed adverse event was a MI, with the remainder representing coronary revascularizations. The effect of missing revascularization events needs further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.