Does Observation for ACS Makes Sense? Part 1: A History of Observation for Chest Pain

Accurate and expeditious diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is one of the key charges of emergency medicine providers. Chest pain is the second most common reason for emergency department visits in the United States and coronary artery disease is our leading cause of death (1,2).

Up until the late 1980s, most patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain were simply admitted to a coronary care unit (CCU) (3). Some of these patients had acute myocardial infarction (MI) and were treated accordingly. However, the majority were low risk patients admitted simply to monitor for the development of acute MI with serial ECGs and cardiac enzyme measurement (CK-MB at that time), with over half eventually being “ruled out” for myocardial infarction (4).

Admission of these “rule out MI” patients to an intensive care unit was costly, leading hospitals to seek ways of distinguishing low-risk patients who could be discharged earlier. Researchers developed decision aids to help identify low risk patients in the ED (5, 6) and attempted to narrow down the shortest amount of time in which MI can be safely ruled out. In the end, several different scores were developed and it was determined that 12-24 hours was an acceptable observation period for ruling out MI (7, 8). The issue remained, however, that these patients were still being admitted to the CCU for the 24 hour observation period.

Image courtesy of Labpedia.net

In 1991, emergency physicians at Brigham and Women’s Hospital published a study describing a “coronary observation unit” in which patients with low risk chest pain were monitored in an emergency department observation unit rather than being admitted to the CCU (9). They used their own clinical algorithm to determine low risk, which they defined as <10% risk of acute myocardial infarction, and in the observation unit, patients underwent ECG every 12 hours and CK-MB testing every 8 hours for a total of 24 hours. Cardiology consult was optional.

If serial ECGs and cardiac enzymes remained normal during the observation period, the patient was discharged home. Study investigators found no increase in cardiac events or death between patients placed in the ED observation unit and the controls who received usual care, i.e. admission to the CCU. 

Three years later, the same researchers published a follow-up paper from their observation unit, this time with a larger patient cohort. Again they confirmed that ED observation was safe and in this study they found significant cost savings for the hospital, piquing the interest of hospital administrators worldwide (10).

An important side note from this study: prior to discharge, the patients in the ED observation unit underwent an exercise stress test. The authors admitted that stress testing has poor sensitivity and specificity, but stated it provided a “reasonable estimation of prognosis” for the patients in whom MI had already been ruled out. It is unclear what happened if patients had abnormal stress test results.

Since 1991, observation units have been widely adopted in emergency departments around the country and most of them have a “rule out MI” pathway. The pathways at each hospital differ, but typically include 12 to 24 hours of telemetry monitoring, serial ECGs, and serial cardiac enzyme testing. Most pathways also include an inpatient stress test or one scheduled within 72 hours, as per the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline recommendations (11). Optional additions to the pathway include cardiology consultation and a rest echocardiogram.

Now that we are 30 years on from the first observation unit, we can re-evaluate the system – does observation for “rule out MI” still make sense with the improved technology and knowledge we have today? The answer, for me at least, is no.

For one, we now have an entirely new cardiac enzyme that is more sensitive and specific for myocardial necrosis than CK-MB – the fabled troponin. Troponin I and troponin T rise within 3-4 hours of myocardial injury and remain elevated for up to 14 days (12). The enhanced qualities of troponin testing allow us to pick up more MIs, and earlier MIs, than CK-MB ever could.

Recent studies show that many patients who have negative CK-MB measurement will actually have positive troponin levels, highlighting the increased sensitivity with troponin testing (13). A more sensitive test will decrease the rate of missed MI in the ED, thus obviating the need for further monitoring in an observation unit.

In addition to the new cardiac enzymes, we have improved clinical prediction tools to identify low risk patients. The TIMI score, GRACE score, and more recently, the HEART score are all validated scoring systems. Emergency providers have warmly embraced the HEART score (and the related HEART pathway) given its simplicity, accuracy, and improvement in ED workflow. Through the use of these clinical prediction tools, we can not only avoid CCU admission for all patients with chest pain, we have identified a large subset who are so low risk that they can be safely discharged straight from the ED with no observation whatsoever.

Image courtesy of heartscore.nl

Now that we are identifying most MIs in the ED and safely discharging home a large swath of patients who are low risk, who is left for the observation unit? Are there any patients who still benefit from this practice? Stay tuned for Part 2 and 3 which will attempt to answer these questions.

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2

CLICK HERE FOR PART 3

REFERENCES

1. 1. Emergency Department Visits. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. Accessed June 1, 2019: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm
2. 2. Heart Disease Facts and Statistics. CDC. Accessed Jun 1, 2019: https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
3. 3. Lee TH, et al. The coronary care unit turns 25: historical trends and future directions. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Jun;108(6):887-94.
4. 4. Pozen MW, et al. A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease. A prospective multicenter clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1984 May 17;310(20):1273-8.
5. 5. Pozen MW, et al. The usefulness of a predictive instrument to reduce inappropriate admissions to the coronary care unit. Ann Intern Med. 1980 Feb;92(2 Pt 1):238-42.
6. 6. Tierney WM, et al. Predictors of myocardial infarction in emergency room patients. Crit Care Med. 1985 Jul;13(7):526-31.
7. 7. Lee TH, et al. Sensitivity of routine clinical criteria for diagnosing myocardial infarction within 24 hours of hospitalization. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Feb;106(2):181-6.
8. 8. Lee TH, et al. Ruling out acute myocardial infarction. A prospective multicenter validation of a 12-hour strategy for patients at low risk. N Engl J Med. 1991 May 2;324(18):1239-46.
9. 9. Gaspoz JM, et al. Outcome of patients who were admitted to a new short-stay unit to “rule-out” myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1991 Jul 15;68(2):145-9.
10. 10. Gaspoz JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a new short-stay unit to “rule out” acute myocardial infarction in low risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994 Nov 1;24(5):1249-59.
11. 11. Amsterdam EA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014 Dec 23;130(25):2354-94.
12. 12. Morrow D, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Clinical Characteristics and Utilization of Biochemical Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes. Circulation. 2007;115:e356–e375
13. 13. Hamm CW, et al.The prognostic value of serum troponin T in unstable angina. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul 16;327(3):146-50.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Charles Murchison

Latest posts by Charles Murchison (see all)

• Benign Early Repolarization vs. Anterior STEMI - February 20, 2020
• Can experienced clinician gestalt + ECG accurately exclude acute MI? - August 20, 2019
• Does Observation for ACS Make Sense? Part 3: Risk Stratifying for Adverse Cardiac Events - June 20, 2019