Citation

Lai SM, Anaikatti P, Thiruchelvam P, Chai SC, Yong Th, et al. (2018) Utility of an Emergency Department Chest Pain Protocol in Ruling Out Acute Coronary Syndrome. Int J Crit Care Emerg Med 4:051. doi.org/10.23937/2474-3674/1510051

ORIGINAL ARTICLE | OPEN ACCESSDOI: 10.23937/2474-3674/1510051

Utility of an Emergency Department Chest Pain Protocol in Ruling Out Acute Coronary Syndrome

Shieh Mei Lai1*, Poongkulali Anaikatti1, Pravin Thiruchelvam2, Siang Chew Chai3, Thon Hon Yong3, Yew Seong Goh4, Sheldon Lee3, Rahul Goswami5, Charlene Jin Yee Liew6 and Pak Liang Goh5

1Consultant, Accident & Emergency Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

2Resident Physician, Accident & Emergency Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

3Consultant, Cardiology Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

4Senior Consultant, Cardiology Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

5Senior Consultant, Accident & Emergency Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

6Consultant, Diagnostic Radiology Department, Changi General Hospital, Singapore

Abstract

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of an Emergency Department Chest Pain Protocol in ruling out Acute Coronary Syndrome in a regional hospital in Singapore.

Methodology

An audit was carried out of the cases admitted to our Short Stay Unit (SSU) under the Chest Pain Protocol from June to November 2014. Patients presenting with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome, but with normal initial electrocardiogram (ECG) and troponin level, could undergo this rule-out protocol, which comprised serial ECGs and troponin levels, followed by selective outpatient treadmill or Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography (CCTA) if they were discharged.

The list of patients was electronically generated from our database at fortnightly intervals. Their casenotes were then reviewed, and phone follow-up done for discharged patients at least 30 days after discharge.

Primary outcome was missed Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) within 30 days, as determined by 2 independent cardiologists using pre-set criteria. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI).

Results

During the period of audit, a total of 240 patients were admitted under the protocol, of which 3 were lost to follow-up. 4 patients were found to have ACS within 30 days, of which 3 were picked up by the protocol. There was 1 case of missed ACS, who had a negative treadmill after discharge from the SSU, but later had an ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). 10 patients had stable CAD requiring PCI.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the protocol is safe and can rule out ACS in most patients.

Keywords

Emergency department, Chest pain protocol

Background

Chest pain accounts for a significant proportion of Emergency Department attendances [1]. The challenge for physicians is to pick up potentially life-threatening conditions such as ACS, since patients with missed ACS who are discharged from the Emergency Department may have adverse consequences and increased mortality [2].

Chest pain units and accelerated diagnostic protocols have taken on an increasingly important role in the work-up of these patients [3-9]. They allow for streamlined work up for ACS and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) without the need for inpatient admission.

Methodology

Beginning in 2012, patients presenting to our Emergency Department with chest pain and possible ACS, but with normal initial ECG and troponin (Troponin T hs STAT; Roche; Mannheim; Germany), could be admitted to our Short Stay Unit (SSU), which is our observational unit, under the Chest Pain Protocol. Exclusion criteria would be patients with typical angina, definite STEMI or NSTEMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk score [10-12] ≥ 3, hemodynamic instability, acute cardiac failure, cardiac arrhythmias, end-stage renal failure, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), suspicion of pulmonary embolism or aortic dissection, and multi-system dysfunction requiring inpatient management. The rule-out protocol comprised serial ECGs and troponin levels (repeated 3 and 6 hours after), followed by selective outpatient treadmill stress test or Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography (CCTA) within 48 hours, ordered at the managing physician's discretion if the patient was discharged. The patient was admitted from the SSU if there was persistent or worsening chest pain, hypotension, arrhythmia, ECG changes suggesting ischemia, or troponin rise.

We conducted an audit of cases managed under this protocol from June to November 2014. Submission was made to our Institutional Review Board, who deemed that our audit did not require ethical review. For the period of audit, the list of patients was electronically generated from our database at fortnightly intervals. The casenotes were reviewed, and phone follow-up done for discharged patients at least 30 days after discharge. Data entry was done in Microsoft Excel, and calculation of confidence intervals using VassarStats.net.

Primary outcome assessed was missed ACS within 30 days. The diagnosis of ACS was assigned using pre-set criteria (Table 1), which were derived from American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines [13,14]. The upper limit of normal at our institution for troponin T levels is 30 ng/L. The definition of missed ACS was any case discharged from the SSU under the protocol but admitted for ACS within 30 days. Other outcomes studied were the number of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) within 90 days, and the incidence of adverse events (including death, cardiovascular collapse, respiratory failure requiring ventilatory support, cardiac arrhythmias or hypotension requiring treatment, and proven pulmonary embolism or aortic dissection). All outcomes were determined by 2 independent cardiologists. If there was disagreement between the 2 cardiologists, a 3rd cardiologist would adjudicate.

Table 1: Diagnostic criteria for acute coronary syndrome. View Table 1

Results

A total of 240 patients were admitted to our SSU under the protocol during the audit period. Of these, 3 patients were lost to follow-up (uncontactable by phone and did not come for follow-up appointments). Mean age of the patients was 53.5 years. Patient demographics have been summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Patient demographics. View Table 2

Four patients were found to have ACS within 30 days, of which three were diagnosed and admitted from the SSU. Of the three cases diagnosed from the SSU, one patient had ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), one had Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI), and one was a case of Unstable Angina who had PCI done during the same admission.

There was one case of missed ACS, who had a normal treadmill stress test one day after discharge from the SSU, but reattended three days later for STEMI. Emergency coronary angiography showed triple vessel disease, with spontaneous recanalization of the culprit lesion in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery. The patient was transferred to a tertiary centre for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG), where post-operatively he developed hypotension requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) life support, and eventually passed away.

Besides this single case of mortality, there were no other adverse events within 30 days. Ten patients were found on follow-up to have stable CAD requiring PCI within 90 days. Patient outcomes, and results of Treadmill stress test and CCTA, are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Results. View Table 3

Discussion

The limitations of our audit were that it was conducted in a single centre, and data collection was observational in nature. However, it would not have been feasible in this context to perform a randomised controlled study. The incidence of ACS in our patients was also low, indicating that this was a relatively low-risk cohort.

Our protocol utilised CCTA as an alternative investigation to treadmill stress test, as Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) is currently not available at our centre and has to be done at another hospital. CCTA was ordered at the physician's discretion for patients who could not run or were deemed unsuitable for treadmill. CCTA has been increasingly used to work up low to intermediate risk chest pain patients in the emergency department and has been shown in several trials to have good negative predictive value, and better efficiency compared to standard care [15-18]. Our results support this, as none of the patients with CCTA showing no or mild stenosis had ACS or an adverse event within 30 days, nor did any of them have significant CAD requiring PCI.

Other centres have demonstrated the safety of discharging chest pain patients with outpatient treadmill stress test [5,19,20], and this is also supported by the AHA scientific statement [3] on testing of low risk chest pain patients. However, there are limitations of treadmill stress testing in diagnosing CAD [21]. Previous meta-analysis [22,23] has found considerable variability in reported diagnostic accuracy, and mean sensitivity was calculated to be 68%. The patient who had a STEMI after a normal treadmill had CAD which was not detected by the stress test, and later most likely had plaque rupture leading to the acute myocardial infarction. During his SSU stay, he had normal ECGs and troponin levels. Polanczyk, et al. [24] demonstrated a major cardiac event rate of about 2% in patients with a negative exercise tolerance test after presentation to the emergency department with chest pain. Our event rate after a normal treadmill stress test was comparable to that.

Conclusion

The results of this audit suggest that the Chest Pain Protocol is safe and can rule out ACS in most patients. The audit also demonstrates the demographic pattern and outcomes of chest pain patients managed in the emergency department observational unit of a regional hospital in Asia.

Authors' Declaration of Interest

None.

Financial Support for Article

None.

References

  1. Goodacre S, Cross E, Arnold J, Angelini K, Capewell S, et al. (2005) The health care burden of acute chest pain. Heart 91: 229-230.
  2. Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, et al. (2000) Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 342: 1163-1170.
  3. Amsterdam EA, Kirk JD, Bluemke DA, Diercks D, Farkouh ME, et al. (2010) Testing of low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 122: 1756-1776.
  4. Fesmire FM, Hughes AD, Fody EP, Jackson AP, Fesmire CE, et al. (2002) The Erlanger chest pain evaluation protocol: A one-year experience with serial 12-lead ECG monitoring, two-hour delta serum marker measurements, and selective nuclear stress testing to identify and exclude acute coronary syndromes. Ann Emerg Med 40: 584-594.
  5. Scheuermeyer FX, Innes G, Grafstein E, Kiess M, Boychuk B, et al. (2012) Safety and efficiency of a chest pain diagnostic algorithm with selective outpatient stress testing for emergency department patients with potential ischemic chest pain. Ann Emerg Med 59: 256-264.
  6. Than M, Cullen L, Reid CM, Lim SH, Aldous S, et al. (2011) A 2-h diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms in the Asia-Pacific region (ASPECT): A prospective observational validation study. Lancet 377: 1077-1084.
  7. Than M, Cullen L, Aldous S, Parsonage WA, Reid CM, et al. (2012) 2-Hour accelerated diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms using contemporary troponins as the only biomarker: The ADAPT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 59: 2091-2098.
  8. Than M, Aldous S, Lord SJ, Goodacre S, Frampton CMA, et al. (2014) A 2-hour diagnostic protocol for possible cardiac chest pain in the emergency department. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 174: 51-58.
  9. Aroney CN, Dunlevie HL, Bett JHN (2003) Use of an accelerated chest pain assessment protocol in patients at intermediate risk of adverse cardiac events. Med J Aust 178: 370-374.
  10. Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJLM, McCabe CH, Horacek T, et al. (2000) The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI. A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA 284: 835-842.
  11. Pollack CV, Sites FD, Shofer FS, Sease KL, Hollander JE, et al. (2006) Application of the TIMI risk score for unstable angina and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to an unselected emergency department chest pain population. Acad Emerg Med 13: 13-18.
  12. Hess EP, Agarwal D, Chandra S, Murad MH, Erwin PJ, et al. (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of the TIMI risk score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: A meta-analysis. CMAJ 182: 1039-1044.
  13. O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE, Chung MK, et al. (2013) 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American college of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation 127: e362-e425.
  14. Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, Califf RM, Cheitlin MD, et al. (2000) ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 36: 970-1062.
  15. Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B, Singh H, Miller CD, et al. (2012) CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 366: 1393-1403.
  16. Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A, Achenbach S, Berman DS, et al. (2011) The CT-STAT (coronary computed tomographic angiography for systematic triage of acute chest pain patients to treatment) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 58: 1414-1422.
  17. Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, Chou ET, Woodard PK, et al. (2012) Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 367: 299-308.
  18. Pena E, Rubens F, Stiell I, Peterson R, Inacio J, et al. (2016) Efficiency and safety of coronary CT angiography compared to standard care in the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain: A Canadian study. Emerg Radiol 23: 345-352.
  19. Meyer MC, Mooney RP, Sekera AK (2006) A critical pathway for patients with acute chest pain and low risk for short-term adverse cardiac events: Role of outpatient stress testing. Ann Emerg Med 47: 427-435.
  20. Lai C, Noeller TP, Schmidt K, King P, Emerman CL (2003) Short-term risk after initial observation for chest pain. J Emerg Med 25: 357-362.
  21. Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, Chaitman BR, Fletcher GF, et al. (2002) ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing. A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on exercise testing). Circulation 106: 1883-1892.
  22. Gianrossi R, Detrano R, Mulvihill D, Lehmann K, Dubach P, et al. (1989) Exercise-induced ST depression in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Circulation 80: 87-98.
  23. Detrano R, Gianrossi R, Froelicher V (1989) The diagnostic accuracy of the exercise electrocardiogram: A meta-analysis of 22 years of research. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 32: 173-206.
  24. Polanczyk CA, Johnson PA, Hartley LH, Walls RM, Shaykevich S, et al. (1998) Clinical correlates and prognostic significance of early negative exercise tolerance test in patients with acute chest pain seen in the hospital emergency department. Am J Cardiol 81: 288-292.

Citation

Lai SM, Anaikatti P, Thiruchelvam P, Chai SC, Yong Th, et al. (2018) Utility of an Emergency Department Chest Pain Protocol in Ruling Out Acute Coronary Syndrome. Int J Crit Care Emerg Med 4:051. doi.org/10.23937/2474-3674/1510051