Drowning injuries in the United States: Patient characteristics, mortality risk, and associated primary diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: To determine patient demographics, associated primary diagnoses, mortality risk, and inpatient mortality of admitted drowning patients in the U.S. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using 2016 National Inpatient Sample Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality dataset. External cause codes were used to identify drowning records, excluding self-inflicted/suicides. ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes, patient demographics, and admission-related data were collected. RESULTS: Of the 4,355 admissions in 2016, 68.3% were male (95% CI 65.3-71.3%) and 70.3% were white (95% CI 66.9-73.6%) with mean length of stay of 5.5 days (95% CI 4.9-6.2) and mean total charge of $81,624 (95% CI $70926-$92321). 8.2% of admissions resulted in inpatient death. Those that died were significantly younger than those that did not die (χ2=5.9, p=0.02). There was a statistically significant association between primary payer and inpatient mortality (χ2=10.5, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Younger, male, and white patients accounted for the majority of drowning admissions and deaths. A significantly larger proportion of Medicaid patients died compared to inpatient mortality of those with other insurance. Recognizing those most impacted by drowning could help better tailor prevention efforts.

The HEART score as a prognostic tool for revascularization.

The History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) score is a useful tool in the Emergency Department setting to identify those patients safe for outpatient evaluation of chest pain. Its utility for predicting cardiac interventions is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of the HEART score to predict the need for cardiac stent or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We conducted a retrospective chart review of 625 consecutive subjects with chest pain presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) with a HEART pathway protocol in place. We also reviewed each subject's record for evidence of major adverse cardiac events within 6 weeks following their ED visit. We double-abstracted 10% of the charts for quality assurance. We included subjects if they were ≥ 18 at the time of presentation and had a chief complaint of chest pain. We excluded subjects if they did not have an electrocardiogram or troponin, or if their chart lacked sufficient information to calculate the history portion of their HEART score. Of 625 charts, 449 subjects met criteria for study inclusion. The area under the receiver operator curve reported as c-statistics was 0.877 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.806-0.949] for the HEART score's ability to predict cardiac stent and 0.921 (95% CI 0.858-0.984) for CABG. There is a strong association between increasing HEART scores and the need for revascularization which may provide emergency physicians justification for expedited cardiology consultation and admission for these patients. These findings require further prospective validation.

An external validation of the HEART pathway among Emergency Department patients with chest pain.

The impact of an outpatient disposition strategy for patients with HEART score 0-3 (HEART pathway) on HEART score prognostic accuracy is unclear. Our objective is to perform an external validation the HEART score in the setting of recent implementation of the HEART pathway. We conducted an external validation study of the HEART pathway among patients presenting to our ED with chest pain 6 weeks after institutional implementation of a HEART pathway outpatient disposition pathway. We reviewed the charts of 625 consecutive patients with chest pain. Data abstracted included all elements of the HEART score to include history, electrocardiogram (ECG) read, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We also reviewed each patient's record for evidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) to include mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization over 6 weeks following their initial ED visit. We double-abstracted 10% of the charts for quality assurance purposes. Of 625 charts, 449 patients met all criteria for study inclusion. Of these, 25 subjects (5.56%) experience 6-week MACE. No subject with a score of 3 or less has a MACE at 6 weeks (100% sensitivity, 38.7% specificity). The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.898 (95% confidence interval 0.847-0.950). Kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability range from 0.62 for the history component of the HEART score to 1.0 for troponin. A low HEART score (0-3) maintains excellent sensitivity for predicting 6-week MACE in the setting of an outpatient disposition pathway for these patients.

Impact of the HEART Pathway on Admission Rates for Emergency Department Patients with Chest Pain: An External Clinical Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint. Safe discharge mechanisms for low-risk chest pain patients would be useful. OBJECTIVE: To compare admission rates prior to and after implementation of an accelerated disposition pathway for ED patients with low-risk chest pain based upon the HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) score (HEART pathway). METHODS: We conducted an impact analysis of the HEART pathway. Patients with a HEART score ≥ 4 underwent hospital admission for cardiac risk stratification and monitoring. Patients with a HEART score ≤ 3 could opt for discharge with 72-h follow-up in lieu of admission. We collected data on cohorts prior to and after implementation of the new disposition pathway. For each cohort, we screened the charts of 625 consecutive chest pain patients. We measured patient demographics, past medical history, vital signs, HEART score, disposition, and 6-week major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using chart review methodology. We compared our primary outcome of hospital admission between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The admission rate for the preintervention cohort was 63.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-68.2%), vs. 48.3% (95% CI 43.7-53.0%) for the postintervention cohort. The absolute difference in admission rates was 15.3% (95% CI 8.7-21.8%). The odds ratio of admission for the postintervention cohort in a logistic regression model controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and vital signs was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33-0.66). One postintervention cohort patient leaving the ED against medical advice (HEART Score 4) experienced 6-week MACE. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART pathway may provide a safe mechanism to optimize resource allocation for risk-stratifying ED chest pain patients.

A retrospective external validation study of the HEART score among patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.

Emergency physicians must be able to effectively prognosticate outcomes for patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with chest pain. The HEART score offers a prognostication tool, but external validation studies are limited. We conducted an external retrospective validation study of the HEART score among ED patients presenting to our ED with chest pain from 1 January 2014 to 9 June 2014. We utilized chart review methodology to abstract data from each patient's electronic medical record. We collected data relevant to each of the five elements of the HEART score: history, electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation, patient age, patient risk factors, and troponin levels. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the HEART score (0-10) for predicting the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 6 weeks following the ED visit (coronary revascularization, myocardial infarction, or mortality). We randomly selected 10% of patient charts from which a second investigator abstracted all data to assess inter-rater reliability for all study variables. Of 625 charts reviewed, we abstracted data on 417 (66.7%) consecutive patients meeting study inclusion criteria. Thirty-one (7.4%) of these patients experienced 6-week MACE. We observed no instances of MACE within 6 weeks among subjects with a HEART score of 3 or less. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) is 0.885 (95% confidence interval 0.838-0.931). Patients with a HEART score ≤3 are at low risk for 6-week MACE. Hence, these patients may be candidates for outpatient follow-up instead of inpatient admission for cardiac risk stratification.

MEF2 transcription factors regulate distinct gene programs in mammalian skeletal muscle differentiation.

Skeletal muscle differentiation requires precisely coordinated transcriptional regulation of diverse gene programs that ultimately give rise to the specialized properties of this cell type. In Drosophila, this process is controlled, in part, by MEF2, the sole member of an evolutionarily conserved transcription factor family. By contrast, vertebrate MEF2 is encoded by four distinct genes, Mef2a, -b, -c, and -d, making it far more challenging to link this transcription factor to the regulation of specific muscle gene programs. Here, we have taken the first step in molecularly dissecting vertebrate MEF2 transcriptional function in skeletal muscle differentiation by depleting individual MEF2 proteins in myoblasts. Whereas MEF2A is absolutely required for proper myoblast differentiation, MEF2B, -C, and -D were found to be dispensable for this process. Furthermore, despite the extensive redundancy, we show that mammalian MEF2 proteins regulate a significant subset of nonoverlapping gene programs. These results suggest that individual MEF2 family members are able to recognize specific targets among the entire cohort of MEF2-regulated genes in the muscle genome. These findings provide opportunities to modulate the activity of MEF2 isoforms and their respective gene programs in skeletal muscle homeostasis and disease.