Background: The HEART Pathway is an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) designed to identify low-risk Emergency Department (ED) patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30 day death and myocardial infarction rate <1% in low-risk patients) and effective (reduces 30 day hospitalizations) in ED patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: A prospective pre/post study was conducted at three US sites among 8,474 adult ED patients with possible ACS. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible ACS, and had no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on electrocardiography. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013- January 2016. The HEART Pathway ADP was integrated into each site’s electronic health record as an interactive clinical decision support tool. Following ADP integration, ED providers prospectively utilized the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible ACS as low-risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low-risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days, were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. Results: Pre- and post-implementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low-risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the post- vs pre-implementation cohort (55.6% vs 61.6%; aOR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.71–0.87). During the index visit more MIs were detected in the post-implementation cohort (6.6% vs 5.7%; aOR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.12–1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% vs 1.3%; aOR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.58–1.33). Conclusions: HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients that can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02056964

A CCTA-based strategy for low-to-intermediate-risk patients presenting with a possible acute coronary syndrome appears to allow the safe, expedited discharge from the emergency department of many patients who would otherwise be admitted. (Funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health and the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00933400.).

Patients diagnosed with acute PE in U.S. EDs have high functional status, and their mortality rate is low. These registry data suggest that appropriate initial medical management of ED patients with severe PE with anticoagulation is poorly standardized and indicate a need for research to determine the appropriate threshold for empiric treatment when PE is suspected before diagnostic confirmation.

Background The HEART Pathway is a decision aid designed to identify emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. No randomized trials have compared the HEART Pathway with usual care. Methods and Results Adult emergency department patients with symptoms related to acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation on ECG (n=282) were randomized to the HEART Pathway or usual care. In the HEART Pathway arm, emergency department providers used the HEART score, a validated decision aid, and troponin measures at 0 and 3 hours to identify patients for early discharge. Usual care was based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary outcome, objective cardiac testing (stress testing or angiography), and secondary outcomes, index length of stay, early discharge, and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), were assessed at 30 days by phone interview and record review. Participants had a mean age of 53 years, 16% had previous myocardial infarction, and 6% (95% confidence interval, 3.6%–9.5%) had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days of randomization. Compared with usual care, use of the HEART Pathway decreased objective cardiac testing at 30 days by 12.1% (68.8% versus 56.7%; P=0.048) and length of stay by 12 hours (9.9 versus 21.9 hours; P=0.013) and increased early discharges by 21.3% (39.7% versus 18.4%; P<0.001). No patients identified for early discharge had major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. Conclusions The HEART Pathway reduces objective cardiac testing during 30 days, shortens length of stay, and increases early discharges. These important efficiency gains occurred without any patients identified for early discharge suffering MACE at 30 days.

Background Patients with low risk chest pain have high utilization of stress testing and cardiac imaging, but low rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of this study was to determine if the HEART score could safely reduce objective cardiac testing in patients with low risk chest pain. Methods A cohort of chest pain patients was identified from an Emergency Department-based observation unit registry. HEART scores were determined using registry data elements and blinded chart review. HEART scores were dichotomized into low (0–3) or high risk (>3). The outcome was MACE; a composite endpoint of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization during the index visit or within 30 days. Sensitivity, specificity, and potential reduction of cardiac testing were calculated. Results Over 28 months, the registry included 1070 low risk chest pain patients. MACE occurred in 0.6% (5/904) of patients with low-risk HEART scores compared to 4.2% (7/166) with a high-risk HEART scores, OR=7.92, (95%CI 2.48–25.25). A HEART score >3 was 58% sensitive (95% CI 32–81%) and 85% specific (95% CI 83–87%) for MACE. The HEART score missed 5 cases of ACS among 1070 patients (0.5%) and could have reduced cardiac testing by 84.5% (904/1070). Combination of serial troponin > 0.065 ng/ml or HEART score >3 resulted in 100% sensitivity (95% CI 72–100%), specificity of 83% (95%CI 81–85%), and potential reduction in cardiac testing of 82% (879/1070). Conclusions If used to guide stress testing and cardiac imaging, the HEART score could substantially reduce cardiac testing in a population with low pre-test probability of ACS.