Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846004›Full record

ArticleCritical pathways in cardiology2016

Implementation of a Risk Stratification and Management Pathway for Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.

Christopher W Baugh, Jeffrey O Greenberg, Simon A Mahler, Joshua M Kosowsky, Jeremiah D Schuur, Siddharth Parmar, George R Ciociolo, Christina W Carr, Roya Ghazinouri, Benjamin M Scirica

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical pathways in cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A Closer Look at the HEART Score.Cardiology research · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Implementation of an Opioid Detoxification Management Pathway Reduces Emergency Department Length of Stay.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christopher W BaughFrom the *Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; †Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; ‡Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; §Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and ¶Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Jeffrey O Greenberg
Simon A Mahler
Joshua M Kosowsky
Jeremiah D Schuur
Siddharth Parmar
George R Ciociolo
Christina W Carr
Roya Ghazinouri
Benjamin M Scirica

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL120008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesChest pain is a common complaint in the emergency department, and a small but important minority represents an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Variation in diagnostic workup, risk stratification, and management may result in underuse, misuse, and/or overuse of resources.

methodsFrom July to October 2014, we conducted a prospective cohort study in an academic medical center by implementing a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP) for chest pain based on the HEART score. In addition to capturing adherence to the SCAMP algorithm and reasons for any deviations, we measured troponin sample timing; rates of stress test utilization; length of stay (LOS); and 30-day rates of revascularization, ACS, and death.

resultsWe identified 239 patients during the enrollment period who were eligible to enter the SCAMP, of whom 97 patients were entered into the pathway. Patients were risk stratified into one of 3 risk tiers: high (n = 3), intermediate (n = 40), and low (n = 54). Among low-risk patients, recommendations for troponin testing were not followed in 56%, and 11% received stress tests contrary to the SCAMP recommendation. None of the low-risk patients had elevated troponin measurements, and none had an abnormal stress test. Mean LOS in low-risk patients managed with discordant plans was 22:26 h/min, compared with 9:13 h/min in concordant patients (P < 0.001). Mean LOS in intermediate-risk patients with stress testing was 25:53 h/min, compared with 7:55 h/min for those without (P < 0.001). At 30 days, 10% of intermediate-risk patients and 0% of low-risk patients experienced an ACS event (risk difference 10% [0.7%-19%]); none experienced revascularization or death. The most frequently cited reason for deviation from the SCAMP was lack of confidence in the tool.

conclusionsCompliance with SCAMP recommendations for low- and intermediate-risk patients was poor, largely due to lack of confidence in the tool. However, in our study population, outcomes suggest that deviation from the SCAMP yielded no additional clinical benefit while significantly prolonging emergency department LOS.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementQuality ImprovementRisk AssessmentAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedAlgorithmsChest PainCritical PathwaysDecision MakingElectrocardiographyEmergency Service, HospitalExercise TestFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidence

Identifiers

PMID27846004
PMCPMC5165652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.