Acceptability, Adaptation, and Clinical Outcomes of Acupuncture Provided in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Pilot Study.

Objective: To evaluate acceptability and clinical outcomes of acupuncture on patient-reported pain and anxiety in an emergency department (ED). Design: Observational, retrospective pilot study. Setting: Abbott Northwestern Hospital ED, Minneapolis, MN. Methods: Retrospective data was used to identify patients receiving acupuncture in addition to standard medical care in the ED between 11/1/13 and 12/31/14. Feasibility was measured by quantifying the utilization of acupuncture in a novel setting and performing limited tests of its efficacy. Patient-reported pain and anxiety scores were collected by the acupuncturist using an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale before (pre) and immediately after (post) acupuncture. Efficacy outcomes were change in pain and anxiety scores. Results: During the study period, 436 patients were referred for acupuncture, 279 of whom were approached by the acupuncturist during their ED visit. Consent for acupuncture was obtained from 89% (248/279). A total of 182 patients, who had a pre-pain score >0 and non-missing anxiety scores, were included in analyses. Of the 52% (94/182) who did not have analgesics before or during the acupuncture session, the average decrease of 2.37 points (95% CI: 1.92, 2.83) was not different (p > 0.05) than the mean decrease of 2.68 points for those receiving analgesics (95% CI 2.21, 3.15). The average pre-anxiety score was 4.73 points (SD = 3.43) and the mean decrease was 2.27 points (95% CI: 1.89, 2.66). Conclusions: Results from this observational trial indicate that acupuncture was acceptable and effective for pain and anxiety reduction, in conjunction with standard medical care. These results will inform future randomized trials.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction: which patients do quality assurance programs include?

BACKGROUND: In the United States, efforts are underway to improve timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Joint Commission (TJC) and the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) have developed standardized definitions and clinical performance measures for STEMI. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in 3 quality-assurance registries for STEMI patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: STEMI patients presenting to the Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital (Minneapolis, Minn) are tracked by 3 distinct quality assurance programs: NCDR, TJC, and the level 1 MI registry (a regional system for percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI which includes transfer patients). Over 1 year, we examined consecutive STEMI patients in level 1 and compared them with individuals meeting NCDR and TJC inclusion criteria. Of 501 STEMI patients treated using the level 1 MI protocol, 422 patients had a clear culprit (402 percutaneous coronary intervention, 13 coronary artery bypass grafting, 7 medical management). In the same period, 282 patients met inclusion criteria for NCDR (56% of the level 1 population), and 66 met inclusion criteria for TJC (13% of the level 1 population). Transfer patients (n=380) accounted for 87% of the discrepancy between level 1 and TJC. Pharmacoinvasive percutaneous coronary intervention (n=102) accounted for 47% of the discrepancy between level 1 and NCDR. CONCLUSIONS: Current inclusion criteria for enrollment in STEMI registries are not uniform. This may lead to variable quality assurance outcomes for the same patient cohort and has important implications for standardized quality measurement.