BACKGROUND: The majority of chest pain admissions originate in the emergency department (ED). Despite a low incidence of cardiac events, limited telemetry availability, and its questionable benefit, these patients are routinely admitted to a monitored setting. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to analyze the cost-effectiveness of admission to telemetry versus admission to an unmonitored hospital bed in low-risk chest pain patients and explore when the use of telemetry may be cost-effective. METHODS: The authors constructed a decision analytic model to evaluate the scenario of an ED admission of an otherwise healthy 55-year-old patient with low-risk chest pain defined as an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) probability of 2%. Costs were estimated from 2009 Medicare data for hospital reimbursement and physician services, as well as published data on disability costs. Published studies were used to estimate the risk of ACS, cardiac arrest, time to defibrillation, survival, long-term disability, and quality of life. RESULTS: In the base case, telemetry was more effective (0.0044 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) but more costly ($299.67) than a floor bed, resulting in a high marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (mCER) of $67,484.55 per QALY. In comprehensive sensitivity analyses, the mCER crossed below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY when the following scenarios were met: the probability of ACS exceeds 3%, the probability of cardiac arrest is greater than 0.4%, the probability of shockable dysrhythmia is above 83%, the probability of delay in telemetry bed availability is below 52%, and the opportunity cost of delay to telemetry bed placement is below $119. CONCLUSIONS: Telemetry may be a "cost-effective" use of health care resources for chest pain patients when patients have a probability of ACS above 3% or for patients with a minimal delay and cost associated with obtaining a monitored bed. Further research is needed to better stratify low-risk chest pain patients to the appropriate inpatient setting and to understand the frequency and costs associated with delays in obtaining monitored beds.
BACKGROUND: The majority of chest pain admissions originate in the emergency department (ED). Despite a low incidence of cardiac events, limited telemetry availability, and its questionable benefit, these patients are routinely admitted to a monitored setting. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to analyze the cost-effectiveness of admission to telemetry versus admission to an unmonitored hospital bed in low-risk chest painpatients and explore when the use of telemetry may be cost-effective. METHODS: The authors constructed a decision analytic model to evaluate the scenario of an ED admission of an otherwise healthy 55-year-old patient with low-risk chest pain defined as an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) probability of 2%. Costs were estimated from 2009 Medicare data for hospital reimbursement and physician services, as well as published data on disability costs. Published studies were used to estimate the risk of ACS, cardiac arrest, time to defibrillation, survival, long-term disability, and quality of life. RESULTS: In the base case, telemetry was more effective (0.0044 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) but more costly ($299.67) than a floor bed, resulting in a high marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (mCER) of $67,484.55 per QALY. In comprehensive sensitivity analyses, the mCER crossed below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY when the following scenarios were met: the probability of ACS exceeds 3%, the probability of cardiac arrest is greater than 0.4%, the probability of shockable dysrhythmia is above 83%, the probability of delay in telemetry bed availability is below 52%, and the opportunity cost of delay to telemetry bed placement is below $119. CONCLUSIONS: Telemetry may be a "cost-effective" use of health care resources for chest painpatients when patients have a probability of ACS above 3% or for patients with a minimal delay and cost associated with obtaining a monitored bed. Further research is needed to better stratify low-risk chest painpatients to the appropriate inpatient setting and to understand the frequency and costs associated with delays in obtaining monitored beds.
Authors: L Durairaj; B Reilly; K Das; C Smith; C Acob; S Husain; M Saquib; P Ganschow; A Evans; R McNutt Journal: Am J Med Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Matthew D Bayley; J Sanford Schwartz; Frances S Shofer; Mark Weiner; Frank D Sites; K Bobbi Traber; Judd E Hollander Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Adam Snider; Marco Papaleo; Stuart Beldner; Chong Park; Dennis Katechis; David Galinkin; Alan Fein Journal: Chest Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Graham Nichol; Ella Huszti; Alice Birnbaum; Brian Mahoney; Myron Weisfeldt; Andrew Travers; Jim Christenson; Karen Kuntz Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Kirsti A Campbell; Elizabeth N Madva; Ana C Villegas; Eleanor E Beale; Scott R Beach; Jason H Wasfy; Ariana M Albanese; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 2.386