ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score has shown use in predicting 30-day and 1-year outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients with potential acute coronary syndrome. Few studies have evaluated the TIMI score in risk stratifying patients selected for the ED observation Unit (EDOU). Risk stratification of patients in this group could identify those at risk for significant cardiac events. Our goal was to evaluate TIMI use for risk stratification in this population and compare outcomes among differing scores. METHODS: A prospective observational study with 30-day telephone follow-up for a 12 month period. Baseline data, outcomes related to EDOU stay, admission, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. TIMI scores were calculated for each patient placed in EDOU. TIMI score was not utilized in the decision to place patients in observation. RESULTS: N = 552. Composite outcomes recorded were myocardial infarction, revascularization, or death either during the EDOU stay, inpatient admission, or the 30-day follow-up. Eighteen composite outcomes were recorded: stent (12 patients), coronary artery bypass graft (3 patients), myocardial infarction and stent (2 patients), and myocardial infarction, and coronary artery bypass graft (1 patient). Distribution by TIMI score was: 0 (102 patients), 1 (196), 2 (142), 3 (72), 4 (27), and 5 (5). Risk of composite outcome increased by score: 0 (1%), 1 (2.6%), 2 (2.1%), 3 (6.9%), 4 (11.1%), and 5 (20%). Those with an intermediate risk score (3-5) were also more likely to require admission (15.4% vs 9.8%, P = .048). CONCLUSION: The TIMI risk score may serve as an effective risk stratification tool among chest pain patients selected for EDOU placement. Patients with intermediate-risk by TIMI may be considered for inpatient admission and/or more aggressive evaluation and therapy.
The American journal of emergency medicine 08/2012; · 1.54 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) serve an important role in the evaluation and risk stratification of low-risk chest pain patients.
Our goal was to evaluate our EDOU protocol for intermediate-risk chest pain patients and compare outcomes and inpatient admission rates for low-risk and intermediate-risk patients.
Prospective observational study with 30-day telephone follow-up for all chest pain patients admitted to our EDOU from June 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010. Our protocol for intermediate-risk chest pain patients includes patients with a self-reported history of coronary artery disease and negative initial cardiac testing in the emergency department. The EDOU protocol involves telemetry, serial cardiac biomarker testing, and mandatory cardiology consultation.
A total of 552 chest pain patients were evaluated, including 100 (18.1%) intermediate-risk and 452 (81.9%) low-risk patients. Intermediate-risk chest pain patients were significantly more likely to have a myocardial infarction or undergo revascularization (stent or coronary artery bypass graft) (8.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.008). Intermediate-risk patients had a higher inpatient admission rate (16.0% vs. 8.8%, P = 0.032). There were no significant unanticipated adverse events at 30-day follow-up in either group.
In conclusion, intermediate-risk chest pain patients in an EDOU had higher rates of significant cardiac events and inpatient admission. Intermediate-risk patients may be appropriate for EDOU placement, given the acceptable inpatient admission rate and the lack of significant adverse events in the 30-day follow-up period. However, given the higher rate of significant cardiac events, the results of our study emphasize the need for increased vigilance and close cardiology consultation in the intermediate-risk group.
Critical pathways in cardiology 03/2012; 11(1):10-3.
ABSTRACT: Several studies have proposed the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) as a risk stratification tool for discharge of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients from the emergency department (ED) and treatment as outpatients, but this has not become accepted standard of care in the United States. Chest pain units (CPUs) may serve as ideal locations for the treatment and risk-stratification of low-risk PE patients, thus avoiding lengthy inpatient stays while assuring patients are appropriate for outpatient therapy for PE. We sought to characterize the number of patients at our institution who may be eligible for a short stay in our CPU and then established a protocol for the treatment of low-risk patients in the CPU.
We identified all patients admitted to the University of Utah Medical Center from the ED with a diagnosis of PE over the 6-year period between 2002 and 2007. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records to identify clinical variables to calculate a PESI score for each patient. Patients who were considered to be low-risk, on the basis of PESI score (class I and II), were considered eligible for treatment in the CPU, and, on the basis of this, we estimated numbers of patients to be treated in the CPU and patient demographics. We determined results of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and bilateral lower extremity (BLE) venous duplex ultrasound for PE patients to estimate potential inpatient admission rates from the CPU. We reviewed the electronic medical records during the 30-day period after hospital admission for patient mortality. We then created a protocol for the treatment of these low-risk patients in the CPU.
A total of 545 patients were admitted with PE during the 6-year period. Of these patients, 282 were considered low risk and potentially appropriate for treatment of PE in the CPU. Of those, 43.3% were male, and the average age was 43.9 years (range: 14-92 years). Mortality was 0% for the low-risk group over the 30 days after hospital admission. A total of 108 patients had TTE performed and, of these, 30 had evidence of right heart strain. Ninety patients had BLE venous duplex and, of these, 15 had a deep venous thrombosis proximal to the popliteal veins. On the basis of our findings, we created a protocol for treatment of low-risk PE patients in the CPU. Patients who are low risk according to PESI score are admitted to the CPU with administration of low-molecular-weight heparin in the ED and initiation of oral anticoagulation therapy. Patients are monitored on telemetry for at least 12 hours, with performance of BLE duplex and TTE while in the CPU. Patients are admitted to an inpatient unit from the CPU if during their stay they exhibit unstable vital signs, a new arrhythmia, deep venous thrombosis proximal to the popliteal veins on BLE duplex, or signs of right heart strain on TTE. Patients who do not meet these criteria are considered appropriate for outpatient treatment and discharged with low-molecular-weight heparin and oral anticoagulation with thrombosis clinic follow-up. Given our findings from the retrospective chart review, we estimated that, at our institution, 4 patients per month would be eligible for treatment of PE in the CPU. With the findings on TTE and BLE duplex, we estimated that 25.3% of eligible patients would eventually require inpatient admission from the CPU.
We identified a number of low-risk patients who may be eligible for treatment of PE in our CPU. Given the resources of the CPU, this may serve as an ideal location for the treatment of low-risk PE patients and allow further risk stratification and consultation beyond that typically readily available in the ED. We described the creation of a protocol for the treatment of low-risk patients with PE in a CPU.
Critical pathways in cardiology 12/2010; 9(4):212-5.