Category Archives: Admission

More Low-Risk Chest Pain!

In this article published in JAMA Internal Medicine in July of last year, a group of emergency physicians reviewed 11,230 records of patients hospitalized for chest pain with 2 negative troponin tests, nonconcerning initial ED vital signs, and nonischemic, interpretable electrocardiographic findings to determine the incidence of patient-centered adverse events in the short term.

What is interesting and unique about this study is the shift from using MACE (which, as I have discussed before, includes somewhat-nebulously-patient-centered bad outcomes such as need for cardiac revascularization — this is an intervention, not a harm that occurred to a patient due to a lack of intervention) from using their more  “clinically relevant adverse cardiac events” (of course requiring a new catchy acronym, CRACE): (1) life-threatening arrhythmia (ventricular fibrillation, sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring treatment, symptomatic bradycardia or bradyasystole requiring emergent intervention, and any tachydysrhythmia treated with cardioversion); (2) inpatient STEMI; (3) cardiac or respiratory arrest; and (4) death.

Another unique aspect of this study was the enrollment of patients who were sick who met their criteria discussed above– many other studies only considered “low risk patients” to be those without significant comorbidities or CV disease histories (e.g. history of CABG, multiple stents, diabetes, hypertension, etc) . They did exclude patients with LBBB or pacemaker rhythms on EKGs, which would have made identification of ischemia perhaps more difficult.

What did they find? Only four patients out of 7266 meeting the above criteria went on to have any of the primary endpoints. Of these, two were non-cardiac and two were possibly iatrogenic. This is a rate of 0.06% (95% CI 0.02-0.14%), which is much lower than many people would likely guess, and can help inform the discussion we can have with patients when arriving at a disposition. If I am practicing in a community such as the authors’, where short-term follow up with a cardiologist can be arranged, and a patient is reliable, I feel that this data can help me feel more comfortable discharging them with that plan rather than admitting to the hospital, if the patient is comfortable with this.

As Ryan Radecki wrote, the applicability of this hinges on tightly integrated follow up, and we cannot practice “catch and release” medicine. This is also only one data set, and requires prospective validation, and we need to acknowledge that this is not a zero-miss strategy (just like any strategy). That said, there are many potential downsides associated with admission, from costs and downstream sequelae of unnecessary invasive testing to iatrogenic harms, and this study will help better inform our conversation with patients about all of these issues.


Weinstock MB1, Weingart S2, Orth F3, VanFossen D4, Kaide C5, Anderson J6, Newman DH7. Risk for Clinically Relevant Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients With Chest Pain at Hospital Admission. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jul;175(7):1207-12. PMID: 25985100. [PubMed] [Read by QxMD]

ALTE Badness – Who to Admit?

Kaji et al. bring us “Apparent life-threatening event: multicenter prospective cohort study to develop a clinical decision rule for admission to the hospital”, which is pretty much what it sounds like. What did it leave us with? The study looked at 832 kids presenting w/ ALTE to four different sites and identified three variables (obvious need for admission, significant medical history, >1 apparent life-threatening event in 24 hours) that identified most (but not all!) infants with apparent life-threatening events necessitating admission. I’ll just put that here again, in case you missed it: one of the conclusions was that obvious need for admission was a variable that predicted need for admission. Huh.

That point aside (and really, it’s a more interesting conclusion than it sounds like — meaning, that the ALTE kids who look sick when they get there tend to go on to have bad outcomes (hypoxia, apnea, bradycardia that is not self-resolving, or serious bacterial infection) discovered while in-hospital or receive some sort of “significant intervention” during their hospitalization that, retrospectively, necessitated admission. To be fair, the variable “obvious need for admission” was defined in the paper as occurring “if the child needed supplemental oxygen for non–self-resolving hypoxia, intubation, ventilation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), intravenous antibiotics for a confirmed serious bacterial infection, or antiepileptic drugs (for status epilepticus); had hemodynamic instability warranting continuous intravenous fluids or vasopressors; or had a positive test result for respiratory syncytial virus or pertussis in the setting of an apparent life-threatening event.”

It would be difficult to argue against admitting any patient in one of these contexts (with the possible exception of non-self-solving hypoxia, which in the bronchiolitic child who is otherwise well-appearing should probably not serve in isolation as a reason to admit), and I imagine that such events occurring in the context of an ALTE are even more clear-cut indications for continued observation and management. Still, this is a nice body of literature showing that even with 84% of patients appearing well at time of ED presentation, 23% go onto need serious interventions once hospitalized — which is to say, being well-appearing at presentation does not protect against the need for escalation of care or therapeutic interventions soon thereafter.


Kaji AH1, Claudius I, Santillanes G, Mittal MK, Hayes K, Lee J, Gausche-Hill M. Apparent life-threatening event: multicenter prospective cohort study to develop a clinical decision rule for admission to the hospital. Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;61(4):379-387. PMID: 23026786. [PubMed] [Read by QxMD]

Bronchiolitis and the Risk of Apneic Events – Risk Stratification Tool?

Walsh et al. published “Derivation of Candidate Clinical Decision Rules to Identify Infants at Risk for Central Apnea.” in Pediatrics in November, which attempted to derive several CDRs and compare them for identifying risk of central apnea in pediatric patients with respiratory illness. Of course, for an outcome as rare as central apnea in a population that usually does very well, almost any set of criteria you apply to patients will leave you with a rule that has a very high NPV — so what did they find?

The group analyzed 990 ED visits for 892 infants. Central apnea subsequently occurred in the hospital in 41 (5%) patients. Three candidate CDRs were generated by different techniques, and the results were analyzed and yielded the following risk factors: Parental report of apnea, previous history of apnea, congenital heart disease, birth weight ≤2.5 kg, lower weight, and age ≤6 weeks all identified a group at high risk for subsequent central apnea. All CDRs and RFs were 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 91%-100%) and had a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 99%-100%) for the subsequent apnea.

Candidate clinical decision rules from Walsh et al.

Candidate clinical decision rules from Walsh et al.

The third tool, not shown above, is a computationally-intensive algorithm that used a Random Forest method to generate a risk stratification. Much like the recently-published work on sepsis using Big Data strategies, this had a better AOC than either of the above two, which are much simpler and can by applied by clinicians. This rule and others like it may have a future in the form of electronic heath record-embedded decision support, but are less amenable to being remembered and applied by the physician at the point of care when making a disposition decision.

It is important to note some caveats about this and the results — particularly the prevalence of apnea in this population, which accepted parental reports of apneic events as part of the numerator (i.e. not just monitored and captured events), but it still underscores the idea that parental concern should be your concern until proven otherwise.

Anyway, all this to say, bronchiolitis-related apnea is a terrible outcome but a very rare outcome. Admission for observation may be considered in high-risk patients, and should be discussed with parents. If a hospital doesn’t have apnea monitoring, is it still reasonable to admit these kids for observation? That’s not really germane to the studies published here, but came up recently on one of my rotations — I guess if a respiratory arrest happened, it would be better to be in a setting where a response could occur swiftly and with full capabilities, but I don’t know that such an admission is better than sending the kid home with parents who will likely be steadfast bedside observers of the child’s respiratory status throughout the night. That question will have to wait for another study, I suppose.


Walsh P1, Cunningham P2, Merchant S3, Walker N3, Heffner J3, Shanholtzer L3, Rothenberg SJ4. Derivation of Candidate Clinical Decision Rules to Identify Infants at Risk for Central Apnea. Pediatrics. 2015 Nov;136(5):e1228-36. PMID: 26482666. [PubMed] [Read by QxMD]