Sex-disparities in chest pain workup: a retrospective cohort review of a university based clinical decision pathway.

BACKGROUND: Females have historically lower rates of cardiovascular testing when compared to males. Clinical decision pathways (CDP) that utilize standardized risk-stratification methods may balance this disparity. We sought to determine whether clinical decision pathways could minimize sex-based differences in the non-invasive workup of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Moreover, we evaluated whether the HEART score would minimize sex-based differences in risk-stratification. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort review of adult ED encounters for chest pain where CDP was employed. Primary outcome was any occurrence of non-invasive imaging (coronary CTA, stress imaging), invasive testing, intervention (PCI or CABG), or death. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We stratified HEART scores and primary/secondary outcomes by sex. RESULTS: A total of 1078 charts met criteria for review. Mean age at presentation was 59 years. Females represented 47% of the population. Low, intermediate, and high-risk patients as determined by the HEART score were 17%, 65%, and 18% of the population, respectively, without any significant differences between males and females. Non-invasive testing was similar between males and females when stratified by risk. Males categorized as high risk underwent more coronary angiogram (33% vs. 16%, p = 0.01) and PCI (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.04) than high risk females, but this was not seen in patients categorized as low or intermediate risk. Males experienced more MACE than females (8% vs. 3%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified no sex-based differences in risk-stratification or non-invasive testing when the CDP was used. High risk males, however, underwent more coronary angiogram and PCI than high risk females, and consequently males experienced more overall MACE than females. This disparity may be explained by sex-based differences in the pathophysiology driving each patient's presentation.

Magnitude of troponin elevation in patients with biomarker evidence of myocardial injury: relative frequency and outcomes in a cohort study across a large healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Serum troponin levels correlate with the extent of myocyte necrosis in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and predict adverse outcomes. However, thresholds of cardiac troponin elevation that could portend to poor outcomes have not been established. METHODS: In this cohort study, we characterized all cardiac troponin elevations > 0.04 ng/mL (upper limit of normal [ULN]) from patients hospitalized with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis of AMI across our health system from 2012-2019. We grouped events into exponential categories of peak cardiac troponin and evaluated the association of these troponin categories with all-cause mortality, heart transplants, or durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). Patients with cardiac troponin > 10,000 × ULN were manually chart reviewed and described. RESULTS: There were 18,194 AMI hospitalizations with elevated cardiac troponin. Peak troponin was 1-10 × ULN in 21.1%, 10-100 × ULN in 34.8%, 100-1,000 × ULN in 30.1%, 1,000-10,000 × ULN in 13.1%, and > 10,000 × ULN in 0.9% of patients. One-year mortality was 17-21% across groups, except in > 10,000 × ULN group where it was 33% (adjusted hazard ratio (99%CI) for > 10,000 × ULN group compared to all others: 1.86 (1.21, 2.86)). Hazards of one-year transplant and MCS were also significantly elevated in the > 10,000 × ULN group. CONCLUSIONS: Elevation in cardiac troponin levels post AMI that are > 10,000 × ULN was rare but identified patients at particularly high risk of adverse events. These patients may benefit from clarification of goals of care and early referral for advanced heart failure therapies. These data have implications for conversion to newer high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays whose maximum assay limit is often lower than traditional assays.

Acute Myocardial Infarction Cohorts Defined by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Versus Diagnosis-Related Groups: Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement and Quality Measures in an Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Among Medicare value-based payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program uses International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes to identify the program denominator, while the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced program uses diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The extent to which these programs target similar patients, whether they target the intended population (type 1 myocardial infarction), and whether outcomes are comparable between cohorts is not known. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 2176 patients hospitalized in an integrated health system, a cohort of patients assigned a principal ICD-10 diagnosis of AMI and a cohort of patients assigned an AMI DRG were compared according to patient-level agreement and outcomes such as mortality and readmission. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five patients were included in the ICD-10 cohort compared with 662 patients in the DRG cohort. Only 421 patients were included in both AMI cohorts (19.3% agreement). DRG cohort patients were older (70 versus 65 years, P<0.001), more often female (48% versus 30%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of heart failure (52% versus 33%, P<0.001) and kidney disease (42% versus 25%, P<0.001). Comparing outcomes, the DRG cohort had significantly higher unadjusted rates of 30-day mortality (6.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001), 1-year mortality (21% versus 8%, P<0.001), and 90-day readmission (26% versus 19%, P=0.006) than the ICD-10 cohort. Two observations help explain these differences: 61% of ICD-10 cohort patients were assigned procedural DRGs for revascularization instead of an AMI DRG, and type 1 myocardial infarction patients made up a smaller proportion of the DRG cohort (34%) than the ICD-10 cohort (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The method used to identify denominators for value-based payment programs has important implications for the patient characteristics and outcomes of the populations. As national and local quality initiatives mature, an emphasis on ICD-10 codes to define AMI cohorts would better represent type 1 myocardial infarction patients.