Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 107–115 | Cite as

Identifying patient risk: The basis for rational discharge planning after acute myocardial infarction

  • L. Kristin Newby
  • Robert M. Califf


Variations in the management of patients with chest pain and acute myocardial infarction (MI) can significantly affect hospital length of stay and cost. Risk stratification of such patients, combined with data about effective therapies, provides the basis for developing rational guide-lines for patient care that can improve efficiency while maintaining quality of care. Such standardized management approaches are often referred to as pathways or CareMaps. To be most effective in guiding hospital course and early discharge planning, risk stratification strategies must be applied early in a patient's course with continuous updating. The process of identifying risk in a patient with acute chest pain occurs in two segments: assessing the risk of acute MI at presentation, and subsequently assessing the morbidity and mortality risk of patients diagnosed with acute MI. Identification of patient risk at presentation has been the subject of intense investigation. The history, physical exam, initial electrocardiogram, and cardiac enzymes are the mainstays of the process, but because of inherent weaknesses in this approach (>25% of acute MIs missed at the initial screening), several risk stratification models have been developed. To date these models have not been widely employed, however. Very sensitive early cardiac markers, such as troponin T, and the use of diagnostic echocardiography or cardiolite perfusion imaging during pain are also being investigated. Chest pain observation units are an alternate strategy and have obviated the need to admit many low- to moderate-risk chest pain patients. In these protocol-driven units, continuous physiologic monitoring and serial cardiac enzymes and electrocardiography over a 9–12 hour period refine the risk assessment. For the majority who “rule out,” the risk of subsequent MI or death is very low. Cost savings due to reduced length of stay and more efficient resource utilization are 63–76% compared with conventional ward or cardiac care unit management. For patients with acute MI, baseline characteristics, complications, and laboratory and diagnostic testing help define the risk of morbidity and mortality and guide management through the immediate post-MI phase and long term. Many models incorporating these features have been proposed for risk stratification after acute MI, and they have implications for both timing of discharge and necessary diagnostic testing. Savings by employing risk stratification to guide hospital course and discharge planning could be 30–44% in some patient groups. In conclusion, risk stratification models can facilitate early discharge planning, potentially reducing hospital stay, improving resource utilization, and reducing costs.

Key Words

risk stratification discharge planning care pathway chest pain unit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cardiology Preeminence Roundtable. Perfecting MI Rule-out: Best Practices for Emergency Evaluation of Chest Pain. Washington DC: The Advisory Board Company, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rouan GW, Hedges JR, Toltzis R, Golstein-Wayne B, Brand D, Goldman L. A chest pain clinic to improve follow-up of patients released from an urban university teaching hospital emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:1145–1150.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldman L, Cook EF, Brand DA, et al. A computer protocol to predict MI in emergency department patients with chest pain. N Engl J Med 1988;318:797–803.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCarthy BD, Behansky JR, D'Agostino RB, Selker HP. Missed diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department: results from a multicenter study. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:579–582.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Puleo PR, Meyer D, Wathen C, et al. Use of a rapid assay of subforms of creatine kinase MB to diagnose or rule out acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1994;331:562–608.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee TH, Goldman L. The coronary care unit turns 25: Historical trends and future directions. Ann Intern Med 1987;108:887–894.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The TIMI IIIB Investigators. Effects of tissue plasminogen activator and a comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Circulation 1994;89:1545–1556.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee TH, Rouan GW, Weisberg MC, et al. Clinical characteristics and natural history of patients with acute myocardial infarction sent home from the emergency department. Am J Cardiol 1987;60:219–224.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rusnak RA, Stair TO, Hansen K, Fastow JS. Litigation against the emergency physician: Common features in cases of missed myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:1029–1034.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Unstable Angina: Diagnosis and Management, Clinical Practice Guideline No. 10. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young GP, Green TR. The role of single EGG, creatine kinase, and CKMB in diagnosing patients with acute chest pain. Am J Emerg Med 1993;11:444–449.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selker HP, Griffith JL, D'Agostino RB. A tool for judging coronary care unit admission appropriateness, valid for both real-time and retrospective use. A time-insensitive predictive instrument (TIPI) for acute cardiac ischemia: A multicenter study. Medical Care 1991;29:610–627.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ohman EM, Armstrong P, Califf RM, et al. Risk stratification in acute ischemic syndromes using serum troponin T (abstract). J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:148A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamm CW, Ravkilde J, Gerhardt W, et al. The prognostic value of serum troponin T in unstable angina. N Engl J Med 1992;327:146–150.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ravkilde J, Herder M, Gerhardt W, et al. Diagnostic performance and prognostic value of serum troponin T in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1993;53:677–685.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee TH, Juarez G, Cook EF, 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;324:1239–1246.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaspoz JM, Lee TH, Cook EF, Weisberg MC, Goldman L. Outcome of patients who were admitted to a new short stay unit to “rule-out” myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1991;68:145–149.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gaspoz JM, Lee TH, Weinstein MC, 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;24:1249–1259.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newby LK, Califf RM, Guerci A, et al. Early discharge in the thrombolytic era: An analysis of criteria for uncomplicated infarction from the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:625–632.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pilote L, Califf RM, Sapp S, et al., for the GUSTO Investigators. Regional differences in the United States for the management of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995;333:565–572.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eisenstein EL, Newby LK, Knight JD, et al. Regional variations in treatment costs and resource utilization for uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction (UMI). J Am Coll Cardiol, 1996;27(Suppl A):330A.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van de Werf F, Topol EJ, Lee KL, et al., for the GUSTO Investigators. Variations in patient management and outcomes for acute myocardial infarction in the United States and other countries. Results from the GUSTO Trial. JAMA 1995;273:1586–1591.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee KL, Woodlief LH, Topol, EJ, et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction: Results from an international trial of 41,021 patients. Circulation 1995;91:1659–1668.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norris RM, Barnaby PF, Brandt PW, et al. Prognosis after recovery from first acute myocardial infarction: Determinants of reinfarction and sudden death. Am J Cardiol1984; 53:408–413.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mark DB, Sigmon K, Topol EJ, et al. Identification of acute myocardial infarction patients suitable for early hospital discharge after aggressive interventional therapy: Results from the Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infaction registry. Circulation 1991;83:1186–1191.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McNeer JF, Wagner GS, Ginsburg PB, et al. Hospital discharge one week after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1978;298:229–232.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanz G, Betriu A, Oller G, et al. Feasibility of early discharge after acute Q wave myocardial infarction in patients not receiving thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:1785–1801.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pryor DB, Hindman MC, Wagner GS, Califf RM, Rhodes MK, Rosati RA. Early discharge after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:528–538.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peterson ED, Shaw LJ. Califf RM. Risk stratification after myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 1996, in press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Topol EJ, Burek K, O'Neill WW, et al. A randomized trial of hospital discharge three days after myocardial infarction in the era of reperfusion. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1083–1088.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eisenstein EL, Newby LK, Knight JD, et al. Cost avoidance through early discharge of the uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction patient (abstract). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27(Suppl A):244A–245A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Kristin Newby
    • 1
  • Robert M. Califf
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations