Dataset Information

Using the clinical chemistry score in the emergency department to detect adverse cardiac events: a diagnostic accuracy study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The ability to rule out or in a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome at emergency department (ED) presentation would be beneficial to patient care and the health care system. The clinical chemistry score (CCS) was evaluated in this context.

Methods

This diagnostic accuracy study evaluated 2 different ED cohorts with suspected acute coronary syndrome. For patients in cohort 1, who presented to the ED of 3 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, between May and August 2013, retrospective measurements were taken using the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay; for patients in cohort 2, who presented to the ED of the same 3 hospitals in Hamilton between November 2012 and February 2013, an ED cardiac presentation blood test panel was performed with the Abbott Diagnostics hs-cTnI assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the CCS (cut-offs of ? 1 and 5) and hs-cTnI alone (published cut-offs) were compared for MACE (composite of death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization) at 30 days for both cohorts and at 90 days for cohort 2.

Results

The incidence of MACE at 30 days was higher in cohort 1 (n = 1058) (19.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8%-22.2%) than in cohort 2 (n = 5974) (14.6%, 95% CI 13.6%-15.6%). In cohort 1, a CCS of 1 or above yielded a sensitivity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.3%-99.9%). The sensitivity with an Ortho hs-cTnI cut-off of 1 ng/L or above was 91.2% (95% CI 86.5%-95.7%). The specificity of a CCS of 5 (97.8%, 95% CI 96.5%-98.7%) was higher than when the overall 99th-percentile cut-off for the Ortho hs-cTnI assay (> 11 ng/L; 90.1%, 95% CI 87.9%-92.0%) was used. A similar pattern was observed in cohort 2 at 30 days and persisted at 90 days with the Abbott hs-cTnI assay.

Interpretation

The CCS derived with 2 different hs-cTnI assays and ED populations yielded higher sensitivity and specificity estimates for MACE than hs-cTnI alone. An intervention study is needed to evaluate the impact of the CCS at both the patient and hospital levels.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01994577.

SUBMITTER: Kavsak PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7608943 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using the clinical chemistry score in the emergency department to detect adverse cardiac events: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Kavsak Peter A PA Cerasuolo Joshua O JO Ko Dennis T DT Ma Jinhui J Sherbino Jonathan J Mondoux Shawn E SE Clayton Natasha N Hill Stephen A SA McQueen Matthew M Griffith Lauren E LE Mehta Shamir R SR Perez Richard R Seow Hsien H Devereaux P J PJ Worster Andrew A

CMAJ open 20201001 4

<h4>Background</h4>The ability to rule out or in a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome at emergency department (ED) presentation would be beneficial to patient care and the health care system. The clinical chemistry score (CCS) was evaluated in this context.<h4>Methods</h4>This diagnostic accuracy study evaluated 2 different ED cohorts with suspected acute coronary syndrome. For patients in cohort 1, who presented to the ED of 3 hospitals in Hami ...[more]

PMID: 33139388

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dietary supplements, such as herbal or complementary nutritional products and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), are commonly used in the United States, yet national data on adverse effects are limited. METHODS:We used nationally representative surveillance data from 63 emergency departments obtained from 2004 through 2013 to describe visits to U.S. emergency departments because of adverse events related to dietary supplements. RESULTS:On the basis of 3667 cases, we estimated that 23,005 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18,611 to 27,398) emergency department visits per year were attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. These visits resulted in an estimated 2154 hospitalizations (95% CI, 1342 to 2967) annually. Such visits frequently involved young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 years (28.0% of visits; 95% CI, 25.1 to 30.8) and unsupervised children (21.2% of visits; 95% CI, 18.4 to 24.0). After the exclusion of unsupervised ingestion of dietary supplements by children, 65.9% (95% CI, 63.2 to 68.5) of emergency department visits for single-supplement-related adverse events involved herbal or complementary nutritional products; 31.8% (95% CI, 29.2 to 34.3) involved micronutrients. Herbal or complementary nutritional products for weight loss (25.5%; 95% CI, 23.1 to 27.9) and increased energy (10.0%; 95% CI, 8.0 to 11.9) were commonly implicated. Weight-loss or energy products caused 71.8% (95% CI, 67.6 to 76.1) of supplement-related adverse events involving palpitations, chest pain, or tachycardia, and 58.0% (95% CI, 52.2 to 63.7) involved persons 20 to 34 years of age. Among adults 65 years of age or older, choking or pill-induced dysphagia or globus caused 37.6% (95% CI, 29.1 to 46.2) of all emergency department visits for supplement-related adverse events; micronutrients were implicated in 83.1% (95% CI, 73.3 to 92.9) of these visits. CONCLUSIONS:An estimated 23,000 emergency department visits in the United States every year are attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. Such visits commonly involve cardiovascular manifestations from weight-loss or energy products among young adults and swallowing problems, often associated with micronutrients, among older adults. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.).

Project description:In 2011, an estimated 26.8 million US adults used prescription medications for mental illness.To estimate the numbers and rates of adverse drug event (ADE) emergency department (ED) visits involving psychiatric medications among US adults between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011.Descriptive analyses of active, nationally representative surveillance of ADE ED visits using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance system and of drug prescribing during outpatient visits using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.Medical records from national probability samples of ED and outpatient visits by adults 19 years or older were reviewed and analyzed.Antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium salts, sedatives and anxiolytics, and stimulants.National estimates of ADE ED visits resulting from therapeutic psychiatric medication use and of psychiatric medication ADE ED visits per 10,000 outpatient visits at which psychiatric medications were prescribed.From 2009 through 2011, there were an estimated 89,094 (95% CI, 68,641-109,548) psychiatric medication ADE ED visits annually, with 19.3% (95% CI, 16.3%-22.2%) resulting in hospitalization and 49.4% (95% CI, 46.5%-52.4%) involving patients aged 19 to 44 years. Sedatives and anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium salts, and stimulants were implicated in an estimated 30,707 (95% CI, 23,406-38,008), 25,377 (95% CI, 19,051-31,704), 21,578 (95% CI, 16,599-26,557), 3620 (95% CI, 2311-4928), and 2779 (95% CI, 1764-3794) respective ADE ED visits annually. Antipsychotics and lithium salts were implicated in 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.2) and 16.4 (95% CI, 13.0-19.9) ADE ED visits per 10,000 outpatient prescription visits, respectively, compared with 3.6 (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) for sedatives and anxiolytics, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.3-3.5) for stimulants, and 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) for antidepressants. The commonly used sedative zolpidem tartrate was implicated in 11.5% (95% CI, 9.5%-13.4%) of all adult psychiatric medication ADE ED visits and in 21.0% (95% CI, 16.3%-25.7%) of visits involving adults 65 years or older, in both cases significantly more than any other psychiatric medication.Psychiatric medications are implicated in many ADEs treated in US EDs. Efforts to reduce ADEs should include adults of all ages but might prioritize medications causing high numbers and rates of ED visits.

Project description:Importance:The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 brought attention to adverse drug events in national patient safety efforts. Updated, detailed, nationally representative data describing adverse drug events can help focus these efforts. Objective:To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits for adverse drug events in the United States in 2013-2014 and describe changes in ED visits for adverse drug events since 2005-2006. Design, Setting, and Participants:Active, nationally representative, public health surveillance in 58 EDs located in the United States and participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project. Exposures:Drugs implicated in ED visits. Main Outcomes and Measures:National weighted estimates of ED visits and subsequent hospitalizations for adverse drug events. Results:Based on data from 42?585 cases, an estimated 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) ED visits for adverse drug events occurred per 1000 individuals annually in 2013 and 2014 and 27.3% (95% CI, 22.2%-32.4%) of ED visits for adverse drug events resulted in hospitalization. An estimated 34.5% (95% CI, 30.3%-38.8%) of ED visits for adverse drug events occurred among adults aged 65 years or older in 2013-2014 compared with an estimated 25.6% (95% CI, 21.1%-30.0%) in 2005-2006; older adults experienced the highest hospitalization rates (43.6%; 95% CI, 36.6%-50.5%). Anticoagulants, antibiotics, and diabetes agents were implicated in an estimated 46.9% (95% CI, 44.2%-49.7%) of ED visits for adverse drug events, which included clinically significant adverse events, such as hemorrhage (anticoagulants), moderate to severe allergic reactions (antibiotics), and hypoglycemia with moderate to severe neurological effects (diabetes agents). Since 2005-2006, the proportions of ED visits for adverse drug events from anticoagulants and diabetes agents have increased, whereas the proportion from antibiotics has decreased. Among children aged 5 years or younger, antibiotics were the most common drug class implicated (56.4%; 95% CI, 51.8%-61.0%). Among children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 years, antibiotics also were the most common drug class implicated (31.8%; 95% CI, 28.7%-34.9%) in ED visits for adverse drug events, followed by antipsychotics (4.5%; 95% CI, 3.3%-5.6%). Among older adults (aged ?65 years), 3 drug classes (anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics) were implicated in an estimated 59.9% (95% CI, 56.8%-62.9%) of ED visits for adverse drug events; 4 anticoagulants (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and enoxaparin) and 5 diabetes agents (insulin and 4 oral agents) were among the 15 most common drugs implicated. Medications to always avoid in older adults according to Beers criteria were implicated in 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.1%) of ED visits for adverse drug events. Conclusions and Relevance:The prevalence of emergency department visits for adverse drug events in the United States was estimated to be 4 per 1000 individuals in 2013 and 2014. The most common drug classes implicated were anticoagulants, antibiotics, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics.

Project description:ImportanceProcedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis.ExposuresThe primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type.Main outcomes and measuresFour outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting.ResultsOf the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions.Conclusions and relevanceThe incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.

Project description:ObjectivesTraditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED trigger tool using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance.MethodsIn design and participants, we studied the ED trigger tool for a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 years and older with Emergency Severity Index acuity levels of 1 to 3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of predefined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival or in the ED, an act of commission or omission, and are assigned one of four event categories. A second-level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false-negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic and clinical factors and triggers. We present sociodemographic data and details about AEs and results of logistic regression for associations of AEs with of triggers, sociodemographics, and clinical variables.ResultsWe captured 2594 visits that are representative, within site, of their patient population. Overall, the sample is 64% white, 54% female, and with a mean age of 51. Variability is observed between sites for age, race, and insurance, but not sex. A total of 240 events were identified in 228 visits (8.8%) of which 53.3% were present on arrival, 19.7% were acts of omission, and 44.6% were medication-related, with some variability across sites. A MERP F score (contributing to need for admission, higher level of care, or prolonged hospitalization) was the most common severity level (35.4% of events). Overall, 185 (77.1%) of 240 events involved patient harm (MERP level ≥ E), affecting 175 visits (6.7%). Triggers were present in 951 visits (36.6%). Presence of any trigger was strongly associated with an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 3.2-6.6). Ten triggers were individually associated with AEs (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1-7.7). Variability was observed across sites in individual trigger associations, event rates, and categories, but not in severity ratings of events. The overall false-negative rate was 6.1%.ConclusionsThe trigger tool approach was successful in identifying meaningful events. The ED trigger tool seems to be a promising approach for identifying all-cause harm in the ED.

Dataset Information

Using the clinical chemistry score in the emergency department to detect adverse cardiac events: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Trial registration

Publications

Using the clinical chemistry score in the emergency department to detect adverse cardiac events: a diagnostic accuracy study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets