Evidence Hub

Adherence to an Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol for Chest Pain: Secondary Analysis of the HEART Pathway Randomized Trial

S. Mahler, Robert F. Riley, G. Russell, B. Hiestand, J. Hoekstra, Cedric W. Lefebvre, B. Nicks, D. Cline et al.

Academic Emergency Medicine, 2015

282 participants · 33 citations

Abstract

Objectives Accelerated diagnostic protocols (ADP), such as the HEART Pathway, are gaining popularity in emergency departments (EDs) as tools used to risk-stratify patients with acute chest pain. However, provider non-adherence may threaten the safety and effectiveness of ADPs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and impact of ADP non-adherence. Methods A secondary analysis of participants enrolled in the HEART Pathway RCT was conducted. This trial enrolled 282 adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on electrocardiogram. Patients randomized to the HEART Pathway (N = 141) were included in this analysis. Outcomes included index visit disposition, non-adherence, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. MACE was defined as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Non-adherence was defined as: 1) under-testing: discharging a high-risk patient from the ED without objective testing (stress testing or coronary angiography); or 2) over-testing: admitting or obtaining objective testing on a low-risk patient. Results Non-adherence to the HEART Pathway occurred in 28 out of 141 patients (20%, 95% CI = 14% to 27%). Over-testing occurred in 19 of 141 patients (13.5%, 95% CI = 8% to 19%) and under-testing in 9 of 141 patients (6%, 95% CI = 3% to 12%). None of these 28 patients suffered MACE. The net effect of non-adherence was ten additional admissions among patients identified as low-risk and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 282 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free