Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Sep;56(3):209-219.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.04.009. Epub 2010 May 31.
We determine whether imaging with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an observation unit would reduce medical costs among patients with emergent non-low-risk chest pain who otherwise would be managed with an inpatient care strategy.
Emergency department patients (n=110) at intermediate or high probability for acute coronary syndrome without electrocardiographic or biomarker evidence of a myocardial infarction provided consent and were randomized to stress cardiac MRI in an observation unit versus standard inpatient care. The primary outcome was direct hospital cost calculated as the sum of hospital and provider costs. Estimated median cost differences (Hodges-Lehmann) and distribution-free 95% confidence intervals (Moses) were used to compare groups.
There were 110 participants with 53 randomized to cardiac MRI and 57 to inpatient care; 8 of 110 (7%) experienced acute coronary syndrome. In the MRI pathway, 49 of 53 underwent stress cardiac MRI, 11 of 53 were admitted, 1 left against medical advice, 41 were discharged, and 2 had acute coronary syndrome. In the inpatient care pathway, 39 of 57 patients initially received stress testing, 54 of 57 were admitted, 3 left against medical advice, and 6 had acute coronary syndrome. At 30 days, no subjects in either group experienced acute coronary syndrome after discharge. The cardiac MRI group had a reduced median hospitalization cost (Hodges-Lehmann estimate $588; 95% confidence interval $336 to $811); 79% were managed without hospital admission.
Compared with inpatient care, an observation unit strategy involving stress cardiac MRI reduced incident cost without any cases of missed acute coronary syndrome in patients with emergent chest pain.
我们旨在确定在观察单元中进行心脏磁共振成像(MRI)检查是否会降低患有紧急非低危胸痛的患者的医疗成本,这些患者原本将接受住院治疗策略。
在没有心电图或生物标志物证据表明心肌梗死的情况下,中等或高度怀疑为急性冠状动脉综合征的急诊患者(n=110)同意并随机分配到观察单元中的应激心脏 MRI 或标准住院治疗。主要结局是直接医院成本,计算为医院和提供者成本的总和。使用霍奇斯-莱曼(Hodges-Lehmann)估计中位数成本差异( Hodges-Lehmann )和无分布 95%置信区间(Moses)(Moses)来比较两组。
共有 110 名参与者,其中 53 名随机分配至心脏 MRI 组,57 名分配至住院治疗组;110 名中有 8 名(7%)患有急性冠状动脉综合征。在 MRI 路径中,53 名中有 49 名接受了应激心脏 MRI,53 名中有 11 名住院,1 名未经医嘱出院,41 名出院,2 名患有急性冠状动脉综合征。在住院治疗组中,57 名患者中有 39 名最初接受了应激试验,57 名中有 54 名住院,3 名未经医嘱出院,6 名患有急性冠状动脉综合征。在 30 天时,两组均无患者在出院后发生急性冠状动脉综合征。MRI 组的中位住院费用降低( Hodges-Lehmann 估计值为 588 美元;95%置信区间为 336 至 811 美元);79%的患者无需住院治疗。
与住院治疗相比,在观察单元中进行应激心脏 MRI 的策略可降低成本,而紧急胸痛患者中没有漏诊急性冠状动脉综合征的情况。