BACKGROUND: Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. METHODS AND RESULTS: On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n=60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n=60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR=24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P=0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR=0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P=0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department-directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00869245.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. METHODS AND RESULTS: On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n=60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n=60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR=24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P=0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR=0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P=0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department-directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00869245.
Authors: E M Antman; M Cohen; P J Bernink; C H McCabe; T Horacek; G Papuchis; B Mautner; R Corbalan; D Radley; E Braunwald Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James E Udelson; Joni R Beshansky; Daniel S Ballin; James A Feldman; John L Griffith; Jonathan Handler; Gary V Heller; Robert C Hendel; J Hector Pope; Robin Ruthazer; Ethan J Spiegler; Robert H Woolard; Harry P Selker Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Mylan C Cohen; Mario J Garcia; John McB Hodgson; W Gregory Hundley; Joao A C Lima; Warren J Manning; Gerald M Pohost; Paolo M Raggi; George P Rodgers; John A Rumberger; Allen J Taylor; Mark A Creager; John W Hirshfeld; Beverly H Lorell; Geno Merli; George P Rodgers; Cynthia M Tracy; Howard H Weitz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: L G Graff; J Dallara; M A Ross; A J Joseph; J Itzcovitz; R P Andelman; C Emerman; S Turbiner; J A Espinosa; H Severance Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-09-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: R R Roberts; R J Zalenski; E K Mensah; R J Rydman; G Ciavarella; L Gussow; K Das; L M Kampe; B Dickover; M F McDermott; A Hart; H E Straus; D G Murphy; R Rao Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-11-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W G Hundley; C A Hamilton; M S Thomas; D M Herrington; T B Salido; D W Kitzman; W C Little; K M Link Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chadwick D Miller; Harold I Litt; Kim Askew; Daniel Entrikin; J Jeffrey Carr; Anna Marie Chang; Jane Kilkenny; Benjamin Weisenthal; Judd E Hollander Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: W Patricia Ingkanisorn; Raymond Y Kwong; Nicole S Bohme; Nancy L Geller; Kenneth L Rhoads; Christopher K Dyke; D Ian Paterson; Mushabbar A Syed; Anthony H Aletras; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raymond Y Kwong; Adam E Schussheim; Suresh Rekhraj; Anthony H Aletras; Nancy Geller; Janice Davis; Timothy F Christian; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Henry Chang; James K Min; Sunil V Rao; Manesh R Patel; Orlando P Simonetti; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Subha V Raman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Robert F Riley; Chadwick D Miller; Gregory B Russell; Erin N Harper; Brian C Hiestand; James W Hoekstra; Cedric W Lefebvre; Bret A Nicks; David M Cline; Kim L Askew; Simon A Mahler Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Simon A Mahler; Thomas C Register; Robert F Riley; Ralph B D'Agostino; Jason P Stopyra; Chadwick D Miller Journal: Crit Pathw Cardiol Date: 2018-06
Authors: Chadwick D Miller; L Douglas Case; William C Little; Simon A Mahler; Gregory L Burke; Erin N Harper; Cedric Lefebvre; Brian Hiestand; James W Hoekstra; Craig A Hamilton; W Gregory Hundley Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-05-08
Authors: Simon A Mahler; Brian C Hiestand; Jamaji Nwanaji-Enwerem; David C Goff; Gregory L Burke; L Douglas Case; Bret Nicks; Chadwick D Miller Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Camilla Strøm; Jakob S Stefansson; Maria Louise Fabritius; Lars S Rasmussen; Thomas A Schmidt; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-13