49 Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of a Rapid High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Protocol Between Hospital-Based and Free-Standing Emergency Department
Recommended Citation
Miller JB, Gunaga S, Krupp S, Klausner HA, Plemmons E, Nassereddine HN, Tuttle JE, Husain A, Cook B, McCord J. 49 Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of a Rapid High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Protocol Between Hospital-Based and Free-Standing Emergency Department. Ann Emerg Med 2022; 80(4):S26.
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
10-1-2022
Publication Title
Ann Emerg Med
Abstract
Study Objectives: Significant variability exists in patient population and diagnostic capabilities of large academic tertiary, community-based hospital, and free-standing emergency departments (ED). Current high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) research has been conducted almost exclusively in hospital-based ED (HBED) settings and the translation of these protocols into the free-standing EDs (FSED) has yet to be explored. This study compared the safety, efficacy, and ED throughput of applying a 0/1-hour, rapid-rule out protocol using hs-cTnI for exclusion of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in HBEDs and FSEDs.
Methods: This was a pre-planned, secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of patients evaluated for possible AMI in 9 EDs in an integrated health system from July 2020 through March of 2021. Five of the EDs were HBEDs and four were FSEDs. The trial arms included a new 0/1-hour rapid protocol using hs-cTnI versus standard care, which used a 0/3-hour protocol without reporting hs-cTnI values below the 99th percentile. All adult ED patients were eligible if the treating clinician ordered an ECG and cardiac troponin. We excluded patients with STEMI, a hs-cTnI >18 ng/L in the ED, or a traumatic cause of symptoms. The primary outcome was safe ED discharge, defined as discharge with no death or AMI within 30-days. Analysis included a mixed effect model adjusting for ED site, time, sex, age, and race. We report adjusted odds ratios (aOR).
Results: The trial included 32,609 patients, of whom 26,957 were seen in HBEDs and 5,652 were seen in FSEDs. Safe discharge from HBED occurred 53% (5947/11,062) of the time in the standard care arm and 50.4% (8,005/15894) under the rapid rule-out protocol (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 – 1.15, p = 0.5). Safe discharge from a FSED occurred 86.2% (2106/2443) of the time in the standard care arm and increased to 95.1% (3052/3209) under the rapid protocol (aOr 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 – 2.13, p=.033). Initiation of a rapid rule-out protocol had no significant impact on overall ED length of stay (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.03, p = 0.8). There was a statistically significant reduction in FSED length of stay with application of a rapid rule-out protocol (3.43 hours (2.55, 4.58) vs. 3.97 hours (2.88, 4.77) using standard care, aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87- 0.95, p <0.001). The percentage of patients who rule-out with their initial hs-cTnI (<4 ng/L) at FSEDs (74%) was significantly larger when compared to hospital based EDs (54%), p<.001. Safe discharge data for all 9 ED sites is detailed in table 1.
Conclusion: Implementation of a hs-cTnI rapid 0/1-hour protocol to evaluate for AMI in FSEDs is feasible and had greater impact on safe ED discharge and length of stay compared to HBEDs.
Volume
80
Issue
4
First Page
S26