Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 875–882 | Cite as

In-Hospital Healthcare Utilization, Outcomes, and Costs in Pre-Hospital-Adjudicated Low-Risk Chest-Pain Patients

  • Dominique N. van DongenEmail author
  • Jan Paul Ottervanger
  • Rudolf Tolsma
  • Marion Fokkert
  • Aize van der Sluis
  • Arnoud W. J. van ‘t Hof
  • Erik Badings
  • Robbert J. Slingerland
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

There is increasing evidence that in patients presenting with acute chest pain, pre-hospital triage can accurately identify low-risk patients. It is, however, still unclear which diagnostics are performed in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk patients and what the contribution is of those diagnostic results in the healthcare process.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to quantify healthcare utilization, costs, and outcomes in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk chest-pain patients, and to extrapolate to total costs in the Netherlands.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study including 700 patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in which pre-hospital risk stratification using the HEART score was performed by paramedics. Low risk was defined as a pre-hospital HEART score ≤ 3. Data on (results of) hospital diagnostics, costs, and discharge diagnosis were collected.

Results

A total of 172 (25%) patients were considered as low risk. Of these low-risk patients, the mean age was 54 years, 52% were male, and 84% of patients were discharged within 12 h. Repeated electrocardiography and routine laboratory measurements, including cardiac markers, were performed in all patients. Chest X-ray was performed in 61% and echocardiography in 11% of patients. After additional diagnostics, two patients (1.2%) were diagnosed as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and two patients (1.2%) as unstable angina. Other diagnoses were atrial fibrillation (n = 1) and acute pancreatitis/cholecystitis (n = 2); all other patients had non-specific/non-acute discharge diagnoses. Mean in-hospital costs per patient were €1580. The estimated yearly acute healthcare cost in low-risk chest-pain patients in the Netherlands is €30,438,700.

Conclusion

In low-risk chest-pain patients according to pre-hospital risk assessment, acute healthcare utilization and costs are high, with limited added value. Possibly, if a complete risk assessment can be performed by ambulance paramedics, acute hospitalization of the majority of low-risk patients is not necessary, which can lead to substantial cost reduction.

Trial ID

Dutch Trial Register [http://www.trialregister.nl]: trial number 4205.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sonja Nijhoff and Hans Lafeber for data collection. We thank Ruben Louw for language editing and proofreading.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the conception or design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. All authors were involved in drafting and commenting on the paper and have approved the final version.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

D. van Dongen, R. Tolsma, M. Fokkert, E. Badings, A. van der Sluis, J. Ottervanger, A. van ‘t Hof and R. Slingerland have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

This work was supported by Isala Research Fund [Grant number INNO1326]. Roche diagnostics provided POC devices and POC strips. Researchers were independent of funders and funders were not involved in writing this research or performing analyses.

Transparency declaration

The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.

Data

D.N. van Dongen had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Patient level data and the full dataset are available from the corresponding author. Consent was not obtained but the presented data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Regional Medical Ethics Board on the 20 September 2013.

References

  1. 1.
    OECD. OECD Health Statistics 2018 [Internet]. 2018. http://www.oecd.org/. Accessed 19 Oct 2018.
  2. 2.
    van den Berg MJ, Kringos DS, Marks LK, Klazinga NS. The Dutch health care performance report: seven years of health care performance assessment in the Netherlands. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walshe K, McKee M, McCarthy M, Groenewegen P, Hansen J, Figueras J, et al. Health systems and policy research in Europe: Horizon 2020. Lancet. 2013;382:668–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klazinga N, Fischer C, Ten Asbroek A. Health services research related to performance indicators and benchmarking in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16:38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:267–315.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Dongen DN, Tolsma RT, Fokkert MJ, Badings EA, van der Sluis A, Slingerland RJ, et al. Pre-hospital risk assessment in suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: A prospective observational study. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872618813846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ishak M, Ali D, Fokkert MJ, Slingerland RJ, Dikkeschei B, Tolsma RT, et al. Fast assessment and management of chest pain without ST-elevation in the pre-hospital gateway: rationale and design. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015;4:129–36.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872614549738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishak M, Ali D, Fokkert MJ, Slingerland RJ, Tolsma RT, Badings E, et al. Fast assessment and management of chest pain patients without ST-elevation in the pre-hospital gateway (FamouS Triage): ruling out a myocardial infarction at home with the modified HEART score. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7:102–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872616687116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, Bosschaert MA, Mast EG, Mosterd A, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:2153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Six AJ, Cullen L, Backus BE, Greenslade J, Parsonage W, Aldous S, et al. The HEART score for the assessment of patients with chest pain in the emergency department. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2645–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD. Third Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2012;126:2020–35.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31826e1058.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    BR/CU-2073 bijlage 2 med spec behandelingen-en-tarieven 2012 def [Internet]. https://puc.overheid.nl/nza/doc/PUC_11665_22/1/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018.
  14. 14.
    Bijlage 2 bij TB/CU-7041-02—Prijspeil ultimo 2013 [Internet]. https://puc.overheid.nl/nza/doc/PUC_11706_22/1/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018.
  15. 15.
    Tariefbeschikking regionale ambulancevoorzieningen 2018—TB/REG-18629-01 [Internet]. https://puc.overheid.nl/nza/doc/PUC_6237_22/. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  16. 16.
    Ambulance facts and statistics [Internet]. https://www.ambulancezorg.nl/themas/public-affairs/facts-figures-english. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  17. 17.
    Ambulance in zicht 2015 [Internet]. http://www.vrgz.nl/media/1650/ambulances-in-zicht-2015.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.
  18. 18.
    Regionale ambulancevoorziening 2018—BR/REG-18152 [Internet]. https://puc.overheid.nl/nza/doc/PUC_21827_22/1/. Accessed 26 Oct 2018.
  19. 19.
    Foy AJ, Liu G, Davidson WR, Sciamanna C, Leslie DL. Comparative effectiveness of diagnostic testing strategies in emergency department patients with chest pain: an analysis of downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:428–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yau AA, Nguyendo LT, Lockett LL, Michaud E. The HEART pathway and hospital cost savings. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2017;16:126–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nieuwets A, Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Buitendijk S, Six AJ, Backus BE, et al. Medical consumption compared for TIMI and HEART score in chest pain patients at the emergency department: a retrospective cost analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Six AJ, Backus BE, Kingma A, Kaandorp SI. Consumption of diagnostic procedures and other cardiology care in chest pain patients after presentation at the emergency department. Neth Heart J. 2012;20:499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reinhardt SW, Lin C-J, Novak E, Brown DL. Noninvasive cardiac testing vs clinical evaluation alone in acute chest pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:212.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinstock MB, Weingart S, Orth F, VanFossen D, Kaide C, Anderson J, et al. Risk for clinically relevant adverse cardiac events in patients with chest pain at hospital admission. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1207.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lucas FL, Sirovich BE, Gallagher PM, Siewers AE, Wennberg DE. Variation in cardiologists’ propensity to test and treat: is it associated with regional variation in utilization? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Poldervaart JM, Reitsma JB, Backus BE, Koffijberg H, Veldkamp RF, Ten Haaf ME, et al. Effect of using the HEART score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: A Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:689–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Safavi KC, Li S-X, Dharmarajan K, Venkatesh AK, Strait KM, Lin H, et al. Hospital variation in the use of noninvasive cardiac imaging and its association with downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:546–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katz DA, Williams GC, Brown RL, Aufderheide TP, Bogner M, Rahko PS, et al. Emergency physicians’ fear of malpractice in evaluating patients with possible acute cardiac ischemia. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46:525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearson SD, Goldman L, Orav EJ, Guadagnoli E, Garcia TB, Johnson PA, et al. Triage decisions for emergency department patients with chest pain: do physicians’ risk attitudes make the difference? J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:557–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ. 2000;320:1197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mani K, Lundkvist J, Holmberg L, Wanhainen A. Challenges in analysis and interpretation of cost data in vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:148–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riley RF, Miller CD, Russell GB, Harper EN, Hiestand BC, Hoekstra JW, et al. Cost analysis of the History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin (HEART) pathway randomized control trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haasenritter J, Biroga T, Keunecke C, Becker A, Donner-Banzhoff N, Dornieden K, et al. Causes of chest pain in primary care—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Croat Med J. 2015;56:422–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoorweg BB, Willemsen RT, Cleef LE, Boogaerts T, Buntinx F, Glatz JF, et al. Frequency of chest pain in primary care, diagnostic tests performed and final diagnoses. Heart. 2017;103:1727–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Willemsen RTA. Assessing chest pain in primary care. Maastricht: Datawyse/Universitaire Pers Maastricht; 2018.  https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20180323rw.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominique N. van Dongen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Paul Ottervanger
    • 1
  • Rudolf Tolsma
    • 2
  • Marion Fokkert
    • 3
  • Aize van der Sluis
    • 4
  • Arnoud W. J. van ‘t Hof
    • 5
    • 6
  • Erik Badings
    • 4
  • Robbert J. Slingerland
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Regional Ambulance Service IJssellandZwolleThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical ChemistryIsala HospitalZwolleThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of CardiologyDeventer HospitalDeventerThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Zuyderland MCHeerlenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of CardiologyMUMCMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations