Risk scores for patients with chest pain: evaluation in the emergency department.

Chest pain is a common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). Absolute criteria for Acute Coronary Syndrome without ST elevation (NSTE-ACS) are lacking. An acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be distinguished from a variety of other cardiac and non-cardiac diseases that may cause chest pain.For patients with confirmed ACS, several scoring methods can be applied in order to distinguish patients in the coronary care unit who may benefit most from therapies. The PURSUIT, TIMI, GRACE and FRISC risk scores are well validated with this respect. However, none of these risk scores has been used in the identification of an ACS in the emergency setting. The vast majority of patients with chest pain due to causes other than ACS were not evaluated in these trials. An evidence-based systematic stratification and policy for these patients does not currently exist.The more recently developed HEART score is specifically designed to stratify all chest pain patients in the ED. The HEART score was validated in a retrospective multicenter study and proved to be a strong predictor of event free survival on one hand and potentially life threatening cardiac events on the other hand. The HEART score facilitates risk stratification of chest pain patients in the ED.

Initial risk stratification and presenting characteristics of patients with evolving myocardial infarctions.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the presenting characteristics and risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain who have a normal initial troponin level followed by a raised troponin level within 12 h (evolving myocardial infarction (EMI)). METHODS: Data from the Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i*trACS), a registry of patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain, were used. This analysis included patients without ST segment elevation with at least two troponin assay results < or = 12 h apart. Patients were stratified into three groups: EMI (initial troponin assay negative, second troponin assay positive), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (initial troponin assay positive) and no MI (all troponin assays negative). RESULTS: Of 4136 eligible patients, 5% had EMI, 8% had NSTEMI and 87% had no MI. Patients with EMI were more similar to those with NSTEMI than those with no MI with respect to demographic characteristics, presentation, admission patterns and revascularisation. The initial ECG in patients with EMI was most commonly non-diagnostic (51%), but physicians' initial impressions commonly reflected MI, unstable angina or high-risk chest pain (76%). This risk assessment was followed by a high rate of critical care admissions (32%) and revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention 17%) among patients with EMI. CONCLUSION: Patients with EMI appear similar at presentation to those with NSTEMI. Patients with EMI are perceived as being at high risk, evidenced by similar diagnostic impressions, admission practices and revascularisation rates to patients with NSTEMI.

2000 ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a practical summary for emergency physicians.

There have been numerous significant clinical advances in both the diagnosis and therapy of acute coronary syndrome during the past several years. Even the term "acute coronary syndrome" is a recent creation meant to expand clinical attention in patients with chest pain of coronary origin beyond identification of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and prompt initiation of reperfusion therapy and to include the evaluation and management of those patients with unstable angina (UA) or myocardial injury that does not cause ST-segment elevation. Many of these advances have been studied and first implemented outside the emergency department, leading some emergency physicians to be slow to embrace them, and leaving others without a viable practical option to use them outside of the cardiac catheterization laboratory or the coronary care unit. In September 2000, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued practice guidelines for the care of patients with UA and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The guidelines specifically address the diagnosis and management of UA and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the ED, suggesting evidence-based standards for risk stratification, for the use of biologic markers of myocardial damage and other adjunctive diagnostic tests, and for the appropriate use of antiplatelet and antithrombin therapeutic agents. This article provides an overview of the ED-pertinent analyses and recommendations from the 93-page document. A commentary on the implementation of these recommendations in the ED follows in a separate article.

Advances create opportunities: implementing the major tenets of the new unstable angina guidelines in the emergency department.

Of all the clinical syndromes with which emergency physicians must deal, chest pain of coronary cause has benefited from the most striking recent advances both in diagnostic approach (cognitive and technologic) and in therapeutic options. Chest pain evaluation and management have become important foci of research in emergency medicine, and entire units are dedicated to its clinical prosecution in emergency departments and elsewhere in the hospital. New diagnostic tools are proposed and studied on a regular basis. Antiplatelet, antithrombin, and fibrinolytic agents unknown in clinical practice as recently as 5 years ago have secured places in the emergency physician's armamentarium for treating acute coronary syndrome. Many of these diagnostic and therapeutic tools have been developed in the coronary care unit and in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Although intuitively they may also be useful outside of those settings, they have unreliably been brought to the ED for implementation and resultant appropriate prompt and early care of the coronary patient who does not meet fibrinolytic criteria. As emergency physicians seek to bring accurate chest pain risk stratification into their practice and begin to use new therapeutic agents to minimize myocardial damage before turning the patient's care over to other specialists, it is essential that they are familiar with the data supporting these approaches. In this commentary, we seek to place the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association unstable angina guidelines into the clinical context of the ED.

Combination of Goldman risk and initial cardiac troponin I for emergency department chest pain patient risk stratification.

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of low-risk emergency department (ED) chest pain patients who may be safe for discharge has not been well defined. Goldman criteria have reliably risk-stratified patients but have not identified any subset safe for ED release. Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) values have also been shown to risk-stratify patients but have not identified a subset safe for ED release. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that ED chest pain patients with a Goldman risk of < or =4% and a single negative cTnI (< or =0.3 ng/mL) at the time of ED presentation would be safe for discharge [<1% risk for death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), revascularization]. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in which consecutive ED chest pain patients were enrolled from July 1999 to November 2000. Data collected included patient demographics, medical and cardiac history, electrocardiogram, and creatine kinase-MB and cTnI. Goldman risk stratification score was calculated while patients were still in the ED. Hospital course was followed daily. Telephone follow-up occurred at 30 days. The main outcome was death, AMI, or revascularization (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/stents/coronary artery bypass grafting) within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 2,322 patients evaluated, 998 had both a Goldman risk < or =4% and a cTnI < or =0.3 ng/mL. During the initial hospitalization, 37 patients met the composite endpoint (3.7%): 6 deaths (0.7%), 17 AMIs (1.7%), 18 revascularizations (1.8%). Between the time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up, 15 patients met the composite endpoint: 4 deaths (0.4%), 6 AMIs (0.6%), and 5 revascularizations (0.5%). Overall, 49 patients met the composite endpoint (4.9%; 95% CI = 3.6% to 6.2%): 10 deaths (1.0%; 95% CI = 0.4% to 1.6%); 23 AMIs (2.3%; 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.2%), and 23 revascularizations (2.3%; 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.2%) within 30 days of presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of two risk stratification modalities for ED chest pain patients (Goldman risk < or =4% and cTnI < or =0.3 ng/mL) did not identify a subgroup of chest pain patients at <1% risk for death, AMI, or revascularization within 30 days.

Bedside multimarker testing for risk stratification in chest pain units: The chest pain evaluation by creatine kinase-MB, myoglobin, and troponin I (CHECKMATE) study.

BACKGROUND: Earlier, rapid evaluation in chest pain units may make patient care more efficient. A multimarker strategy (MMS) testing for several markers of myocardial necrosis with different time-to-positivity profiles also may offer clinical advantages. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively compared bedside quantitative multimarker testing versus local laboratory results (LL) in 1005 patients in 6 chest pain units. Myoglobin, creatine kinase-MB, and troponin I were measured at 0, 3, 6, 9 to 12, and 16 to 24 hours after admission. Two MMS were defined: MMS-1 (all 3 markers) and MMS-2 (creatine kinase-MB and troponin I only). The primary assessment was to relate marker status with 30-day death or infarction. More patients were positive by 24 hours with MMS than with LL (MMS-1, 23.9%; MMS-2, 18.8%; LL, 8.8%; P=0.001, all comparisons), and they became positive sooner with MMS-1 (2.5 hours, P=0.023 versus LL) versus MMS-2 (2.8 hours, P=0.026 versus LL) or LL (3.4 hours). The relation between baseline MMS status and 30-day death or infarction was stronger (MMS-1: positive, 18.8% event rate versus negative, 3.0%, P=0.001; MMS-2: 21.9% versus 3.2%, P=0.001) than that for LL (13.6% versus 5.5%, P=0.038). MMS-1 discriminated 30-day death better (positive, 2.0% versus negative, 0.0%, P=0.007) than MMS-2 (positive, 1.8% versus negative, 0.2%; P=0.055) or LL (positive, 0.0% versus negative, 0.5%; P=1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid multimarker analysis identifies positive patients earlier and provides better risk stratification for mortality than a local laboratory-based, single-marker approach.

Markers and the initial triage and treatment of patients with chest pain.

Emergency departments evaluate nearly 8 million patients with chest pain per year. Nearly 4 million of these individuals are admitted to inpatient units for further evaluation and treatment, but only 30% of these admitted patients ultimately have the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Previously, the initial evaluation of patients with chest discomfort presenting to the emergency department (ED) involved the triad of history, physical, and ECG. Current evidence demonstrates that a fourth element, cardiac markers, serves as a valuable aid in not only determining initial diagnosis but also providing risk stratification and dictating initial patient treatment. Chest pain units (CPUs) using serial marker determinations have been successful in identifying patients with or at risk for adverse cardiac events in a timely and cost- efficient manner. New point-of-care-testing (POCT) of cardiac markers at the patient's bedside allows for even more timely determination. This article will review the use of cardiac markers in heterogeneous patients presenting to EDs with chest discomfort. We will focus on the use of markers in the risk stratification and initial treatment of the ED chest pain population and emphasize the role of CPUs and POCT.

[Chest pain units: state of the art of the management of patients with chest pain in the emergency department]. / Unidades de dolor torácico: estado actual del manejo de pacientes con dolor torácico en los servicios de urgencias.

Chest pain is one of the most common reasons for patients coming to emergency departments. Most of these individuals end up being hospitalized due to uncertainty of the cause of their complaint. This aggressive and defensive attitude is taken by emergency physicians because some 10 to 30% of these patients actually have acute coronary syndrome. As the admission electrocardiogram and serum CK-MB level have a sensitivity of about 50% for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, serial evaluation is mandatory for non-low risk patients. Inspite of this knowledge, an average of 2-3% of patients with acute myocardial infarction are erroneously released from emergency departments, what is responsible for expensive malpractice suits in the United States. Chest Pain Units were introduced in emergency practice two decades ago to improve medical care quality, reduce inappropriate hospital discharges, reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce medical costs, thus making patient's assessment cost-effective. This is achieved mostly with the use of systematic diagnostic protocols by qualified and trained personnel in the emergency department setting and not in the coronary care unit.

Provocative testing for chest pain.

Since the first Chest Pain Center (CPC) was set up in 1981 to speed up the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction, the original concept has been expanded to include rapid evaluation of chest pain patients with the appropriate streamlining of care and incorporation of the latest in technology. It has also been established that among patients presenting with acute chest pain, a very low-risk group with less than 5% probability of a coronary event can be identified. The recognition of this group could prevent unnecessary admissions, affording more appropriate patient care and improved cost-effectiveness. The efficient management of these chest pain patients requires that there be reductions in: (1) delays in therapy, (2) "soft" admissions, (3) inappropriate dispositions, and (4) cost. With time, provocative testing (PT) for chest pain patients has been brought forward to the frontline. PT methods are now being studied in hundreds of emergency department (ED) patients, followed up over several months to ascertain the predictive value of both positive and negative test results. More and more CPCs are now using PT as part of their management protocol, in terms of decision-making pertaining to prognostification, treatment and disposition. This could be in the form of the ECG graded exercise test (GXT), stress echocardiography (SE) and stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) radionuclide perfusion imaging. The GXT is fairly widely used currently, SE is gaining popularity and stress radionuclide perfusion imaging will perhaps gain more acceptance as the experience with its use as well as the number of randomized controlled studies increase. As we move into the new millennium, the emergency physicians must familiarize themselves with the latest in the state-of-the-art concepts and technology to render improved, up-to-date and more cost-effective patient care.

Massive hemoperitoneum due to rupture of a retroperitoneal varix.

Intra-abdominal hemorrhage from ruptured varices is an unusual, life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. We present the case of a 58-year-old man with alcoholic cirrhosis who presented with increasing abdominal girth, hypovolemic shock, and profound anemia due to rupture of a retroperitoneal varix into the peritoneal cavity. The clinical presentation of this rare problem is remarkably consistent among published reports. Early recognition may help the treating physician reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic outcome.

Cocaine-associated chest pain in a chest pain center.

Chest pain is the most common cocaine-related complaint. The objective of this study was to describe an emergency department-based chest pain center for patients with cocaine-associated chest pain and to evaluate the safety of this protocol by assessing cardiac complications at 30 days.

Redefining medical treatment in the management of unstable angina.

In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research sponsored the development of guidelines for diagnosing and managing patients with unstable angina. Since their publication, several important developments have occurred. The prognostic value of biochemical assays for cardiac-specific troponins T and I have been shown in many studies. The possible role for C-reactive protein in determining prognosis deserves further investigation. Substantial clinical benefits have been obtained with intravenous inhibitors of the platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa receptor (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban) and with one of the low-molecular-weight heparins (enoxaparin). The therapeutic potential of other low-molecular-weight heparins, direct thrombin inhibitors, and oral GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors remains to be clarified. On the basis of this evidence, consideration should be given to measuring serum levels of a cardiac troponin (either T or I) and using intravenous GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors and low-molecular-weight heparin in the standard management of patients with unstable angina.

A randomized trial of the effects of early cardiac serum marker availability on reperfusion therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the serial markers, acute myocardial infarction and rapid treatment trial (SMARTT).

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the immediate availability of serum markers would increase the appropriate use of thrombolytic therapy. BACKGROUND: Serum markers such as myoglobin and creatine kinase, MB fraction (CK-MB) are effective in detecting acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the emergency setting. Appropriate candidates for thrombolytic therapy are not always identified in the emergency department (ED), as 20% to 30% of eligible patients go untreated, representing 10% to 15% of all patients with AMI. Patients presenting with chest pain consistent with acute coronary syndrome were evaluated in the EDs of 12 hospitals throughout North America. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled clinical trial, physicians received either the immediate myoglobin/CK-MB results at 0 and 1 h after enrollment (stat) or conventional reporting of myoglobin/CK-MB 3 h or more after hospital admission (control). The primary end point was the comparison of the proportion of patients within the stat group versus control group who received appropriate thrombolytic therapy. Secondary end points included the emergent use of any reperfusion treatment in both groups, initial hospital disposition of patients (coronary care unit, monitor or nonmonitor beds) and the proportion of patients appropriately discharged from the ED. RESULTS: Of 6,352 patients enrolled, 814 (12.8%) were diagnosed as having AMI. For patients having AMI, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients treated with thrombolytic therapy between the stat and control groups (15.1% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.45). When only patients with ST segment elevation on their initial electrocardiogram were compared, there were still no significant differences between the groups. Also, there was no difference in the hospital placement of patients in critical care and non- critical care beds. The availability of early markers was associated with more hospital admissions as compared to the control group, as the number of patients discharged from the ED was decreased in the stat versus control groups (28.4% vs. 31.5%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of 0- and 1-h myoglobin and CK-MB results after ED evaluation had no effect on the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients presenting with AMI, and it slightly increased the number of patients admitted to the hospital who had no evidence of acute myocardial necrosis.

Identification of patients at risk by graded exercise testing in an emergency department chest pain center.

The study applied a retrospective follow-up design to determine the prognostic effect of graded exercise testing (GXT) in patients with low- to moderate-risk chest pain evaluated in an emergency department 9-hour protocol chest pain center (CPC) from January 1, 1993 to August 1, 1996. The cohort of 1,209 patients were followed to the date of death or first adverse cardiac event up to 1 year after CPC admission. Cardiac events were defined as coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, cardiogenic shock, cardiac-related death, congestive heart failure admission, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation arrest, and myocardial infarction. Patients with acute ST-segment elevation or depression of >1 mm, positive enzyme (creatine kinase myocardial band) testing, or unstable angina during their CPC evaluation were admitted without GXT testing. Statistical analysis included chi-square test for complication rates and Cox proportional-hazards modeling. Nine hundred fifty-eight of 1,209 patients underwent GXT testing. Patients with positive, inconclusive, and normal GXTs had complication rates of 36.8% (7 of 19), 3.4% (9 of 267), and 1.1% (5 of 456), respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the relative risk of complication was 38.9 (95% confidence interval 11.7 to 129.6) with a positive GXT, and 3.6 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 10.7) with an inconclusive GXT compared with a normal GXT. The GXT is a good prognostic indicator of adverse cardiac events in low- to moderate-risk chest pain in patients evaluated in an emergency department CPC.

Chest pain centers: diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes.

Chest pain centers in the emergency department have generally been accepted as a safe, cost-effective, and rapid approach to the evaluation, triage, and management of patients with potential acute coronary syndromes. These centers were initially designed to enhance patient care by decreasing time to treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and rapidly identifying patients with unstable angina. They also included community outreach and educational objectives designed to reduce time from the onset of chest pain to ED presentation. In the past decade, health care financial constraints have created additional impetus to the development of chest pain centers. Cost reduction efforts have occurred to reduce hospitalizations, lengths of stay, and unnecessary treatments and procedures. Practitioners and administrators try to balance these goals with the imperative to provide high-quality patient care. Protocol-driven approaches have been developed for specific disease processes in emergency settings. The chest pain center concept is such an approach for patients with chest pain. Chest pain is the second most common ED presenting complaint and is a symptom related to the leading cause of death in the United States, coronary artery disease (CAD). One third of ED patients with chest pain will eventually have a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. Many patients with acute coronary syndromes have atypical presentations that are not diagnosed in the ED with the traditional diagnostic evaluation of a history, physical examination, and 12-lead ECG. If they are not admitted to the hospital for further evaluation, the diagnosis may be missed. The 2% to 5% of AMI patients who are inadvertently released home often have poor outcomes and result in a leading cause of malpractice suits in emergency medicine. More than one half of ED patients with chest pain have clinical findings after their initial evaluation consistent with acute coronary syndromes and are admitted to the hospital. Approximately one half of these patients, after evaluation in the hospital, are found not to have acute coronary syndromes. The cost for these negative inpatient cardiac evaluations has been estimated to be $6 billion in the United States each year. Today, chest pain centers serve as an integral component of many EDs. Their success and safety is the result of a focused, protocol-driven approach directed at the acute coronary syndrome continuum from unstable angina to transmural Q-wave myocardial infarction. New therapies for acute coronary syndromes make ED triage and risk stratification increasingly important. Although different chest pain center protocols have proved effective, all address the diagnosis and rapid treatment of acute myocardial necrosis, rest ischemia, and exercise-induced ischemia. Identifying patients with coronary artery disease in one of these stages in the spectrum of myocardial ischemia is the foundation for a successful chest pain center in the ED.

National Heart Attack Alert Program position paper: chest pain centers and programs for the evaluation of acute cardiac ischemia.

The National Heart Attack Alert Program (NHAAP), which is coordinated by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), promotes the early detection and optimal treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction and other acute coronary ischemic syndromes. The NHAAP, having observed the development and growth of chest pain centers in emergency departments with special interest, created a task force to evaluate such centers and make recommendations pertaining to the management of patients with acute cardiac ischemia. This position paper offers recommendations to assist emergency physicians in EDs, including those with chest pain centers, in providing comprehensive care for patients with acute cardiac ischemia.

Risk stratification with a point-of-care cardiac troponin T test in acute myocardial infarction. GUSTOIII Investigators. Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries.

Troponin T has been used successfully to risk stratify patients with acute coronary syndromes, but the utility of this approach using a rapid bedside assay in patients undergoing thrombolysis for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction has not been assessed in a large population. We assessed whether a point-of-care, qualitative troponin T test at enrollment could independently risk-stratify patients randomized to receive alteplase or reteplase in the GUSTO-III trial. Complete troponin T data were available for 12,666 patients (84%) enrolled at 550 hospitals. The primary end point was mortality at 30 days, and the predictive ability of an elevated baseline troponin T level was analyzed (after adjustment for baseline characteristics) with multiple logistic regression. Patients with an elevated troponin T result at enrollment (8.9%) had significantly higher mortality at 30 days (unadjusted 15.7% vs 6.2% for negative patients; p = 0.001), which persisted even after adjustment for age, heart rate, location of infarction, Killip class, and systolic blood pressure. In a multivariable regression model, a positive troponin T result added independently to the prediction of 30-day mortality (chi-square 46, p = 0.001). A positive result with qualitative troponin T testing on admission is an independent marker of higher 30-day mortality. Troponin T testing could be a valuable addition to the evaluation strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

The role of cardiac markers in the emergency department.

The emergency department (ED) evaluation of patients with potential acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has traditionally included initial cardiac marker testing for suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI). While ED management decisions for patients with ACS have largely been based on history, physical examination, and a presenting 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), there is ample evidence that markers impact treatment decisions and provide risk stratification. Newer, more sensitive markers of myocardial necrosis have blurred the distinction between patients with and without classically defined AMI, and have focused attention on the continuum of ACS from angina to transmural Q-wave MI. Newer antiplatelet agents, the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockers, are likely to receive increased ED utilization. This use will be partially driven by ED cardiac marker determination. Bedside, point-of-care testing is reliable technology that may shorten time to diagnosis and treatment of ACS in the emergency setting. The ED-based chest pain center (CPC) has become a popular tool to evaluate patients at low- to moderate-risk for ACS and a non-diagnostic ECG. Such centers use serial cardiac marker testing as a mainstay for evaluation and risk stratification. Cost issues have driven many diagnostic patient evaluations from the inpatient setting to such ED observation units. As this becomes more common for low- to moderate-risk patients with chest pain, serial assessment of cardiac markers, and their interpretation by emergency physicians, will become essential.

National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Standards of Laboratory Practice: recommendations for the use of cardiac markers in coronary artery diseases.

The Sixth Conference on the "Standards of Laboratory Practice Series", sponsored by the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB), was held on August 4-5, 1998, at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, in Chicago, IL. An expert committee was assembled to write recommendations on the use of cardiac markers in coronary artery diseases. The NACB Committee prepared a preliminary draft of the guidelines, made them available on the World Wide Web (www.nacb.org), and distributed them before the presentations. The recommendations were divided into four areas: the use of markers in the triage of patients with chest pain, acute coronary syndromes, clinical applications other than acute myocardial infarction and research, and assay platforms and markers of acute myocardial infarction. The recommendations were revised and subsequently re-presented in part at the "Biomarkers in Acute Cardiac Syndromes Conference", sponsored by the Jewish Hospital Heart and Lung Institute, Louisville KY, on October 16-17, 1998. This report lists each recommendation, its scientific justification, and a summary of discussions from conference participants and reviewers. Approximately 100 individuals responded to various versions of these recommendations via direct correspondences, telephone calls to Committee members, electronic mail correspondence to the Committee Chairman, or oral questions and comments raised during one of the two conference presentations. Some of the recommendations were changed to reflect the consensus opinion. In cases in which there was no consensus, the Committee included pertinent discussion without necessarily changing the original recommendations. At times, the Committee members felt that although a particular recommendation might not be the current standard of care today, they anticipate that it likely will be adopted in the near future.