ArticleClinical cardiology2020
A comparative 30-day outcome analysis of inpatient evaluation vs outpatient testing in patients presenting with chest pain in the high-sensitivity troponin era. A propensity score matched case-control retrospective study.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice pattern of use of high sensitivity troponin in the outpatient settings.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- A comparative 30-day outcome analysis of inpatient evaluation vs outpatient testing in patients presenting with chest pain in the high-sensitivity troponin era. A propensity score matched case-control retrospective study.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe best disposition of chest pain patients who rule out for myocardial infarction (MI) but have non-low clinical risk scores in the high-sensitivity troponin era is not well studied. HYPOTHESIS: In carefully selected patients who rule out for MI, and have a high-sensitivity troponin T ≤ 50 ng/L with an absolute increase less than 5 ng/L on repeat measurements, early emergency room (ER) discharge might be equivalent to inpatient evaluation in regards to 30-day incidence of adverse cardiac events (ACEs) regardless of the clinical risk score.
methodsA total of 12 847 chest pain patients presenting to our health system ERs from January 2017 to September 2019 were retrospectively investigated. A propensity score matching algorithm was used to account for baseline differences between admitted and discharged cohorts. We then estimated and compared the incidence of 30-day and 1-year composite ACEs (MI, urgent revascularization, or cardiovascular death) between both groups. A multivariate Cox regression model was used to evaluate the effect of admission on outcomes.
resultsA total of 2060 patients were matched in 1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint of 30-day composite ACEs occurred in 0.6% and 0.4% of the admission and the discharged cohorts, respectively (P = .76). One-year composite ACEs was also similar between both groups (4% vs 3.7%, P = .75). In a multivariate Cox regression model, the effect of inpatient evaluation was neutral (hazard ratio 1.1, confidence interval 0.62-1.9, P = .75).
conclusionsInpatient evaluation was not associated with better outcomes in our selected group of patients. Larger-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.
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.