Can a chest pain virtual ward be used to safely manage patients with low-risk acute coronary syndrome?

Abstract

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) accounts for approximately 2-6% of emergency department (ED) presentations and contributes at least 20% of the overall acute hospital admissions(1-3). Patients presenting with low-risk ACS may be suitable for remote monitoring(4) while awaiting angiogram in chest pain virtual ward(CPVW) thereby improving patient flow and resource utilisation. Purpose We aimed to assess outcomes for patients with low-risk ACS admitted in a district general hospital with a view to establish an onboarding pathway for CPVW whilst ensuring a safe monitoring without effecting the readmission rate or all-cause mortality. Methods We retrospectively analysed the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) registry of from March 2022 to April 2023 for patients who presented to ED with a diagnosis of confirmed ACS. Patients were stratified into low-risk (GRACE score <140, HEART score <4, non-dynamic ECG, non-dynamic troponin, without ongoing chest pain), all other patients were deemed intermediate-to-high-risk ACS. Baseline demographics, the total length of acute admission days, waiting time before and after coronary investigation ,adverse events (escalation of therapy, death)whilst awaiting for invasive inpatient angiogram were calculated. The primary endpoint was 30-day readmission and all-cause mortality. Results 1077 patients were coded as ACS diagnosis in ED. 561(52.1%) had a confirmed diagnosis of ACS. Data to allow stratification was available for 538 patients, included in final analysis. 377(70.1%) were male with a mean age of 66.8 ± SD 13.1 years. A significant number of patients had other comorbidities, including hypertension (66.1%), diabetes (45.3%), hyperlipidaemia (51.3%), and previous history of IHD (46.5%). Total number of patients stratified into low-risk ACS was 55(10.2%), intermediate-to-high-risk group contained 483(89.8%) patients. The median total-length-of-stay (LOS) for low-risk ACS patients was 4 days(IQR 2-7), waiting time to have an inpatient angiogram was 3 days(IQR 0-5), and discharge time post-angiogram was 1 day(IQR 0-2). 4 patients(7.3%) in low-risk cohort required CCU admission for GTN infusion due to ongoing chest pain, among them 3 patients(5.5%) had abnormal coronary angiogram. 5 patients(9.1%) in low-risk cohort were readmitted due to chest pain post-angiogram and no patients had 30-days or 1-year all-cause mortality. The result depicts 51 patients from low-risk cohort would have been eligible for CPVW reducing the LOS from median 4 days to 1-2 days, this is a saving of 102-153 acute bed days per year. Assuming the costing of a bed day is £320 this equates to £32,640 - £48,960 cost saving without any adverse outcomes. Conclusion Our data suggests that there is a large cost saving with minimal risk in managing patients with low-risk ACS via a CPVW. This pathway of management is likely to have benefit in patient flow and resource utilisation in our district general hospital trust.Comparison of different ACS cohortsCPVW flow-diagram