Literature DB >> 19135281

Randomized trial of computerized quantitative pretest probability in low-risk chest pain patients: effect on safety and resource use.

Jeffrey A Kline1, Raghid A Zeitouni, Jackeline Hernandez-Nino, Alan E Jones.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that the presentation of a quantitative pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome would safely reduce unnecessary resource use in low-risk emergency department (ED) chest pain patients.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of adult patients with chest pain paired with their clinicians. Patients had neither obvious evidence of acute coronary syndrome nor obvious other reason for admission. Clinicans provided their unstructured point estimate for pretest probability before randomization. Clinicans and patients in the intervention group received a printout of pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome result displayed numerically and graphically. Controls received no printout. Patients were followed for 45 days for predefined criteria of acute coronary syndrome and efficacy endpoints. Endpoints were compared between groups, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences.
RESULTS: Four hundred were enrolled, and 31 were excluded for cocaine use or elopement from care. The mean pretest probability estimates of acute coronary syndrome were 4 (SD 5%) from clinicians and 4 (SD 6%) from the computer. Safety and efficacy endpoints for controls (n=185) versus intervention patients (n=184) were as follows: (1) delayed or missed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome: 1 of 185 versus 0 of 184 (95% CI for difference -2.8% to 15.0%); (2) hospital admission with no significant cardiovascular diagnosis, 11% versus 5% (-0.2% to 11%); (3) thoracic imaging imparting greater than 5 mSv radiation with a negative result, 20% versus 9% (95% CI for difference = 3.8% to 18.0%); (4) median length of stay, 11.4 hours versus 9.2 hours (95% CI for difference = -2.9 to 7.6 hours); (5) reported feeling "very satisfied" with clinician explanation of problem on follow-up survey, 38% versus 49% (95% CI for difference = 0.9% to 21.0%); (6) readmitted within 7 days, 11% versus 4% (95% CI for difference = 2.5% to 13.2%).
CONCLUSION: Presentation of a quantitative estimate of the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome to clinicians and low-risk ED chest pain patients was associated with reduced resource use, without evidence of increased rate of premature discharge of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19135281     DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.09.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  14 in total

1.  The burden of acute heart failure on U.S. emergency departments.

Authors:  Alan B Storrow; Cathy A Jenkins; Wesley H Self; Pauline T Alexander; Tyler W Barrett; Jin H Han; Candace D McNaughton; Benjamin S Heavrin; Mihai Gheorghiade; Sean P Collins
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 12.035

2.  Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care.

Authors:  Jeremiah D Schuur; Christopher W Baugh; Erik P Hess; Joshua A Hilton; Jesse M Pines; Brent R Asplin
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Moving toward comprehensive acute heart failure risk assessment in the emergency department: the importance of self-care and shared decision making.

Authors:  Sean P Collins; Alan B Storrow
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 12.035

4.  Scope and Influence of Electronic Health Record-Integrated Clinical Decision Support in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brian W Patterson; Michael S Pulia; Shashank Ravi; Peter L T Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Douglas Wiegmann; Emily J Wirkus; Stephen Johnson; Pascale Carayon
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 5.721

5.  Use of mind maps and iterative decision trees to develop a guideline-based clinical decision support system for routine surgical practice: case study in thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Hyeong Won Yu; Maqbool Hussain; Muhammad Afzal; Taqdir Ali; June Young Choi; Ho-Seong Han; Sungyoung Lee
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department.

Authors:  Meghan A Pierce; Erik P Hess; Jeffrey A Kline; Nilay D Shah; Maggie Breslin; Megan E Branda; Laurie J Pencille; Brent R Asplin; David M Nestler; Annie T Sadosty; Ian G Stiell; Henry H Ting; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Association of patient preferences for participation in decision making with length of stay and costs among hospitalized patients.

Authors:  Hyo Jung Tak; Gregory W Ruhnke; David O Meltzer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Perceived Appropriateness of Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Marc A Probst; Hemal K Kanzaria; Dominick L Frosch; Erik P Hess; Gary Winkel; Ka Ming Ngai; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.451

9.  Self-reported cocaine use, emergency physician testing and outcomes in suspected acute coronary syndromes: a nested matched case-control study.

Authors:  Yang Wang; Christopher J Lindsell; Charles V Pollack; Judd Hollander; Deborah B Diercks; J Douglas Kirk; Venkataraman Anantharaman; W Brian Gibler; James Hoekstra; W Frank Peacock
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial.

Authors:  Ryan T Anderson; Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah; Henry H Ting; Laurie J Pencille; Michel Demers; Jeffrey A Kline; Deborah B Diercks; Judd E Hollander; Carlos A Torres; Jason T Schaffer; Jeph Herrin; Megan Branda; Annie Leblanc; Erik P Hess
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.