Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 53, Issue 3 , Pages 321-328, March 2009

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Central Laboratory and Point-of-Care Cardiac Marker Testing Strategies: The Disposition Impacted by Serial Point of Care Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes (DISPO-ACS) Trial

Presented as an abstract at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, May 2007, Chicago, IL.

  • Richard J. Ryan, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Richard J. Ryan, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267; 513-558-8104, fax 513-558-5791
  • ,
  • Christopher J. Lindsell, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
  • ,
  • Judd E. Hollander, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
  • ,
  • Brian O'Neil, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
  • ,
  • Raymond Jackson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI
  • ,
  • Donald Schreiber, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
  • ,
  • Robert Christenson, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
  • ,
  • W. Brian Gibler, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH

Received 26 February 2008; received in revised form 8 May 2008 and 29 May 2008; accepted 24 June 2008. published online 08 August 2008.

Study objective

Point-of-care testing reduces time to cardiac marker results in patients evaluated for acute coronary syndromes, yet evidence this translates to a decreased length of stay is lacking. We hypothesized that point-of-care testing decreases length of stay in patients being evaluated for acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

Patients being evaluated for possible acute coronary syndromes at 4 EDs in the United States were randomized to having point-of-care markers as well as central laboratory markers, or central laboratory markers only (laboratory arm). Point-of-care markers were obtained using early serial testing at presentation and at 90, 180, and 360 minutes as required by the treating physician. Evaluation, treatment, and disposition decisions were at the treating physician's discretion. Length of stay was from presentation to the time of departure from the ED, either to an inpatient setting or to home.

Results

There were 1,000 patients in each study arm. There were 520 patients discharged home from the ED. Median (interquartile range) time to discharge home was 4.6 hours (3.5 to 6.1 hours) in laboratory patients and 4.5 hours (3.5 to 6.1 hours) in point-of-care patients. Median (interquartile range) time to transfer to an inpatient setting for admitted patients was 5.5 hours (4.2 to 7.5 hours) in laboratory patients, and 5.4 hours (4.1 to 7.3 hours) in point-of-care patients. At one site, time to transfer to the floor was reduced in the point-of-care arm compared with the laboratory arm (difference in medians 0.45 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI] –0.14 to 1.04 hours). At one site, time to ED departure for discharged patients was higher in the point-of-care arm than the laboratory arm (difference in medians 1.25 hours; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.36 hours).

Conclusion

The effect of point-of-care testing on length of stay in the ED varies between settings. At one site, point-of-care testing decreased time to admission, whereas at another, point-of-care testing increased time to discharge. Potential effects of point-of-care testing on patient throughput should be considered in the full context of ED operations.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD

 Dr. Yealy was the supervising editor on this article. Dr. Hollander did not participate in the editorial review or decision to publish this article.

 Author contributions: All authors contributed to the conception and design of this study. WBG was responsible for obtaining funding. Data were collected by RJR, JEH, BO, RJ, and DS. CJL was responsible for data management and analysis. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the data. RJR and CJL drafted the article, and all authors provided critical feedback. RJR takes responsibility for the paper as whole.

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. This study was funded in part by i-STAT/Abbott POC. The funding agency had no control over the study design, data collection, data analysis or interpretation and presentation of results. CJL and RJR have received research grants from Abbott POC.

 Publication dates: Available online August 8, 2008.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(08)01457-1

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.06.464

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 53, Issue 3 , Pages 321-328, March 2009