Key result
The effect of point-of-care panel assessment on successful discharge varied markedly between hospitals, with odds ratios ranging from 0.12 to 11.07.
Why the study?
Does diagnostic assessment using a point-of-care panel of cardiac markers improve successful discharge in patients with acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=2,243)
Yes
Does diagnostic assessment using a point-of-care panel of cardiac markers improve successful discharge in patients with acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction?
The impact of point-of-care cardiac marker testing on successful discharge and costs for suspected myocardial infarction varies significantly across different hospitals.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Marked interhospital variation in discharge rates and costs cautions against uniform adoption; extends RATPAC by highlighting dependence on local protocols.
BACKGROUND: The RATPAC trial showed that using a point-of-care panel of CK-MB(mass), myoglobin and troponin at baseline and 90 min increased the proportion of patients successfully discharged home, leading to reduced median length of initial hospital stay. However, it did not change mean hospital stay and may have increased mean costs per patient. The aim of this study was to explore variation in outcome and costs between participating hospitals. METHODS: RATPAC was a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (N=2243) and economic analysis comparing diagnostic assessment using the panel to standard care for patients with acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction at six hospitals. The difference in the proportion of patients successfully discharged (primary outcome) and mean costs per patient between the participating hospitals was compared. RESULTS: Point-of-care assessment led to a higher proportion of successful discharges in four hospitals, a lower proportion in one and was equivocal in another. The OR (95% CI) for the primary outcome varied from 0.12 (0.01 to 1.03) to 11.07 (6.23 to 19.66) with significant heterogeneity between the centres (p<0.001). The mean cost per patient for the intervention group ranged from being £214.49 less than the control group (-132.56 to 657.10) to £646.57 more expensive (73.12 to 1612.71), with weak evidence of heterogeneity between the centres (p=0.0803). CONCLUSION: The effect of point-of-care panel assessment on successful discharge and costs per patient varied markedly between hospitals and may depend on local protocols, staff practices and available facilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bradburn et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction (n=2,243). Point-of-care panel of CK-MB(mass), myoglobin and troponin vs. Standard care was evaluated on Proportion of patients successfully discharged (OR 0.12 to 11.07, p=<0.001). The effect of point-of-care panel assessment on successful discharge varied markedly between hospitals, with odds ratios ranging from 0.12 to 11.07.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: