Key result
HEART Pathway implementation linked to ~24% fewer 30-day hospitalizations in urban but not rural patients.
Why the study?
This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of the HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol based on patient rurality or socioeconomic status.
Does the HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol reduce 30-day hospitalizations and maintain safety in patients with possible ACS across different rurality and socioeconomic statuses?
Cohort (n=7,245)
Does the HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol reduce 30-day hospitalizations and maintain safety in patients with possible ACS across different rurality and socioeconomic statuses?
The HEART Pathway safely reduces 30-day hospitalizations for possible ACS in urban patients and across socioeconomic groups, but its effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations in rural patients is less pronounced.
May reduce urban hospitalizations across SES strata without safety signals; leaves open rural effectiveness and requires prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: The HEART Pathway is a validated accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) for patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of the HEART Pathway based on patient rurality (rural vs. urban) or socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: We performed a preplanned subgroup analysis of the HEART Pathway Implementation Study. The primary outcomes were death or myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization at 30 days. Proportions were compared by SES and rurality with Fisher's exact tests. Logistic regression evaluated for interactions of ADP implementation with SES or rurality and changes in outcomes within subgroups. RESULTS: Among 7245 patients with rurality and SES data, 39.9% (2887/7245) were rural and 22.2% were low SES (1607/7245). The HEART Pathway identified patients as low risk in 32.2% (818/2540) of urban versus 28.1% (425/1512) of rural patients (p = 0.007) and 34.0% (311/915) of low SES versus 29.7% (932/3137) high SES patients (p = 0.02). Among low-risk patients, 30-day death or MI occurred in 0.6% (5/818) of urban versus 0.2% (1/425) rural (p = 0.67) and 0.6% (2/311) with low SES versus 0.4% (4/932) high SES (p = 0.64). Following implementation, 30-day hospitalization was reduced by 7.7% in urban patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.87), 10.6% in low SES patients (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), and 4.5% in high SES patients (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94). However, rural patients had a nonsignificant 3.3% reduction in hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: HEART Pathway implementation decreased 30-day hospitalizations regardless of SES and for urban patients but not rural patients. The 30-day death or MI rate was similar among low-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Neill et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=7,245). HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol vs. Pre-implementation (implied) and across rurality/SES subgroups was evaluated on Death or myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization at 30 days. HEART Pathway implementation decreased 30-day hospitalizations for urban (aOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66-0.87), low SES, and high SES patients, but not rural patients, with similar death or MI rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Academic Emergency Medicine