Cargando…

Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively ‘rule out’ and ‘rule in’ acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is fe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Body, Richard, Boachie, Charles, McConnachie, Alex, Carley, Simon, Van Den Berg, Patricia, Lecky, Fiona E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Emergency Medicine Journal 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28500087
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-206148
_version_ 1783259824411115520
author Body, Richard
Boachie, Charles
McConnachie, Alex
Carley, Simon
Van Den Berg, Patricia
Lecky, Fiona E
author_facet Body, Richard
Boachie, Charles
McConnachie, Alex
Carley, Simon
Van Den Berg, Patricia
Lecky, Fiona E
author_sort Body, Richard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively ‘rule out’ and ‘rule in’ acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is feasible. METHODS: Patients presenting to two EDs with suspected cardiac chest pain were randomised to receive care guided by the MACS decision rule (intervention group) or standard care (controls). The primary efficacy outcome was a successful discharge from the ED, defined as a decision to discharge within 4 hours of arrival providing that the patient did not have a missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or develop a major adverse cardiac event (MACE: death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were included between October 2013 and October 2014, of whom 131 (95%) were randomised (66 to intervention and 65 controls). Nine (7%) patients had prevalent AMI and six (5%) had incident MACE within 30 days. All 131 patients completed 30-day follow-up and were included in the final analysis with no missing data for the primary analyses. Compared with standard care, a significantly greater proportion of patients whose care was guided by the MACS rule were successfully discharged within 4 hours (26% vs 8%, adjusted OR 5.45, 95% CI 1.73 to 17.11, p=0.004). No patients in either group who were discharged within 4 hours had a diagnosis of AMI or incident MACE within 30 days (0.0%, 95% CI 0% to 20.0% in the intervention group). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, use of the MACS rule led to a significant increase in safe discharges from the ED but a larger, fully powered trial remains necessary. Our findings seem to support the feasibility of that trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 86818215. RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE REFERENCE: 13/NW/0081. UKCRN REGISTRATION ID: 14334.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5574380
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Emergency Medicine Journal
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55743802017-10-10 Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial Body, Richard Boachie, Charles McConnachie, Alex Carley, Simon Van Den Berg, Patricia Lecky, Fiona E Emerg Med J Original Articles BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule can effectively ‘rule out’ and ‘rule in’ acute coronary syndromes (ACS) following a single blood test. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether a large trial is feasible. METHODS: Patients presenting to two EDs with suspected cardiac chest pain were randomised to receive care guided by the MACS decision rule (intervention group) or standard care (controls). The primary efficacy outcome was a successful discharge from the ED, defined as a decision to discharge within 4 hours of arrival providing that the patient did not have a missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or develop a major adverse cardiac event (MACE: death, AMI or coronary revascularisation) within 30 days. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and attrition rates. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were included between October 2013 and October 2014, of whom 131 (95%) were randomised (66 to intervention and 65 controls). Nine (7%) patients had prevalent AMI and six (5%) had incident MACE within 30 days. All 131 patients completed 30-day follow-up and were included in the final analysis with no missing data for the primary analyses. Compared with standard care, a significantly greater proportion of patients whose care was guided by the MACS rule were successfully discharged within 4 hours (26% vs 8%, adjusted OR 5.45, 95% CI 1.73 to 17.11, p=0.004). No patients in either group who were discharged within 4 hours had a diagnosis of AMI or incident MACE within 30 days (0.0%, 95% CI 0% to 20.0% in the intervention group). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, use of the MACS rule led to a significant increase in safe discharges from the ED but a larger, fully powered trial remains necessary. Our findings seem to support the feasibility of that trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 86818215. RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE REFERENCE: 13/NW/0081. UKCRN REGISTRATION ID: 14334. Emergency Medicine Journal 2017-09 2017-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5574380/ /pubmed/28500087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-206148 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Articles
Body, Richard
Boachie, Charles
McConnachie, Alex
Carley, Simon
Van Den Berg, Patricia
Lecky, Fiona E
Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title_full Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title_short Feasibility of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
title_sort feasibility of the manchester acute coronary syndromes (macs) decision rule to safely reduce unnecessary hospital admissions: a pilot randomised controlled trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28500087
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-206148
work_keys_str_mv AT bodyrichard feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT boachiecharles feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mcconnachiealex feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT carleysimon feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT vandenbergpatricia feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT leckyfionae feasibilityofthemanchesteracutecoronarysyndromesmacsdecisionruletosafelyreduceunnecessaryhospitaladmissionsapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrial