Anil N Makam1, Oanh K Nguyen1. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Cardiac biomarker testing is not routinely indicated in the emergency department (ED) because of low utility and potential downstream harms from false-positive results. However, current rates of testing are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the use of cardiac biomarker testing overall, as well as stratified by disposition status and selected characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of ED visits by adults (≥18 years old) selected from the 2009 and 2010 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a probability sample of ED visits in the United States. EXPOSURES: Selected patient, visit, and ED characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Receipt of cardiac biomarker testing during the ED visit. RESULTS: Of 44,448 ED visits, cardiac biomarkers were tested in 16.9% of visits, representing 28.6 million visits. Biomarker testing occurred in 8.2% of visits in the absence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)-related symptoms, representing 8.5 million visits, almost one-third of all visits with biomarker testing. Among individuals subsequently hospitalized, cardiac biomarkers were tested in 47.0% of all visits. In this group, biomarkers were tested in 35.4% of visits despite the absence of ACS-related symptoms. Among all ED visits, the number of other tests or services performed was the strongest predictor of biomarker testing independent of symptoms of ACS. Compared with 0 to 5 other tests or services performed, more than 10 other tests or services performed was associated with 59.55 (95% CI, 39.23-90.40) times the odds of biomarker testing. The adjusted probabilities of biomarker testing if 0 to 5, 6 to 10, or more than 10 other tests or services performed were 6.3%, 34.3%, and 62.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cardiac biomarker testing in the ED is common even among those without symptoms suggestive of ACS. Cardiac biomarker testing is also frequently used during visits with a high volume of other tests or services independent of the clinical presentation. More attention is needed to develop strategies for appropriate use of cardiac biomarkers.
IMPORTANCE: Cardiac biomarker testing is not routinely indicated in the emergency department (ED) because of low utility and potential downstream harms from false-positive results. However, current rates of testing are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the use of cardiac biomarker testing overall, as well as stratified by disposition status and selected characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of ED visits by adults (≥18 years old) selected from the 2009 and 2010 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a probability sample of ED visits in the United States. EXPOSURES: Selected patient, visit, and ED characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Receipt of cardiac biomarker testing during the ED visit. RESULTS: Of 44,448 ED visits, cardiac biomarkers were tested in 16.9% of visits, representing 28.6 million visits. Biomarker testing occurred in 8.2% of visits in the absence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)-related symptoms, representing 8.5 million visits, almost one-third of all visits with biomarker testing. Among individuals subsequently hospitalized, cardiac biomarkers were tested in 47.0% of all visits. In this group, biomarkers were tested in 35.4% of visits despite the absence of ACS-related symptoms. Among all ED visits, the number of other tests or services performed was the strongest predictor of biomarker testing independent of symptoms of ACS. Compared with 0 to 5 other tests or services performed, more than 10 other tests or services performed was associated with 59.55 (95% CI, 39.23-90.40) times the odds of biomarker testing. The adjusted probabilities of biomarker testing if 0 to 5, 6 to 10, or more than 10 other tests or services performed were 6.3%, 34.3%, and 62.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cardiac biomarker testing in the ED is common even among those without symptoms suggestive of ACS. Cardiac biomarker testing is also frequently used during visits with a high volume of other tests or services independent of the clinical presentation. More attention is needed to develop strategies for appropriate use of cardiac biomarkers.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L Kristin Newby; Robert L Jesse; Joseph D Babb; Robert H Christenson; Thomas M De Fer; George A Diamond; Francis M Fesmire; Stephen A Geraci; Bernard J Gersh; Greg C Larsen; Sanjay Kaul; Charles R McKay; George J Philippides; William S Weintraub Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher J Lindsell; Venkataraman Anantharaman; Deborah Diercks; Jin Ho Han; James W Hoekstra; Judd E Hollander; J Douglas Kirk; Swee-Han Lim; W Frank Peacock; Brian Tiffany; Eric K Wilke; W Brian Gibler; Charles V Pollack Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: W Frank Peacock; Brigette M Baumann; Deborah Bruton; Thomas E Davis; Beverly Handy; Christopher W Jones; Judd E Hollander; Alexander T Limkakeng; Abhi Mehrotra; Martin Than; Andre Ziegler; Carina Dinkel Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Yader Sandoval; Bradley R Lewis; Ramila A Mehta; Olatunde Ola; Jonathan D Knott; Laura De Michieli; Ashok Akula; Ronstan Lobo; Eric H Yang; S Michael Gharacholou; Marshall Dworak; Erika Crockford; Nicholas Rastas; Eric Grube; Swetha Karturi; Scott Wohlrab; David O Hodge; Tahir Tak; Charles Cagin; Rajiv Gulati; Allan S Jaffe Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Bryn E Mumma; Scott D Casey; Robert K Dang; Michelle K Polen; Jasmanpreet C Kaur; John Rodrigo; Daniel J Tancredi; Robert A Narverud; Ezra A Amsterdam; Nam Tran Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Andrew R Chapman; Kuan Ken Lee; David A McAllister; Louise Cullen; Jaimi H Greenslade; William Parsonage; Andrew Worster; Peter A Kavsak; Stefan Blankenberg; Johannes Neumann; Nils A Sörensen; Dirk Westermann; Madelon M Buijs; Gerard J E Verdel; John W Pickering; Martin P Than; Raphael Twerenbold; Patrick Badertscher; Zaid Sabti; Christian Mueller; Atul Anand; Philip Adamson; Fiona E Strachan; Amy Ferry; Dennis Sandeman; Alasdair Gray; Richard Body; Brian Keevil; Edward Carlton; Kim Greaves; Frederick K Korley; Thomas S Metkus; Yader Sandoval; Fred S Apple; David E Newby; Anoop S V Shah; Nicholas L Mills Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Philip W Chui; Denise Esserman; Lori A Bastian; Jeptha P Curtis; Parul U Gandhi; Lindsey Rosman; Nihar Desai; Ronald G Hauser Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Calvin L Kienbacher; Verena Fuhrmann; Raphael van Tulder; Christof Havel; Wolfgang Schreiber; Susanne Rasoul-Rockenschaub; Thomas Wrba; Harald Herkner; Anton N Laggner; Dominik Roth Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Anoop S V Shah; Atul Anand; Yader Sandoval; Kuan Ken Lee; Stephen W Smith; Philip D Adamson; Andrew R Chapman; Timothy Langdon; Dennis Sandeman; Amar Vaswani; Fiona E Strachan; Amy Ferry; Alexandra G Stirzaker; Alan Reid; Alasdair J Gray; Paul O Collinson; David A McAllister; Fred S Apple; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 202.731