CJEM Articles: George A. Wells

Objective: We derived a clinical decision rule to determine which emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require chest radiography.

Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS over a 6 month period. Emergency physicians completed standardized clinical assessments and ordered chest radiographs as appropriate. Two blinded investigators independently classified chest radiographs as "normal," "abnormal not requiring intervention" and "abnormal requiring intervention," based on review of the radiology report and the medical record. The primary outcome was abnormality of chest radiographs requiring acute intervention. Analyses included interrater reliability assessment (with κ statistics), univariate analyses and recursive partitioning.

Results: We enrolled 529 patients during the study period between Jul. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. Patients had a mean age of 59.9 years, 60.3% were male, 4.0% had a history of con gestive heart failure and 21.9% had a history of acute myocardial infarction. Only 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1%-3.8%) of patients had radiographic abnormality of the chest requiring acute intervention. The κ statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.95). We derived the following rule: patients can forgo chest radiography if they have no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking and no abnormalities on lung auscultation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%) and 36.1% specific (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%).

Conclusion: This rule has potential to reduce health care costs and enhance ED patient flow. It requires validation in an independent patient population before introduction into clinical practice.

Objective: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical prediction rules to exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We contacted content experts to identify additional articles for review. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. We selected articles for review based on the following criteria: 1) enrolled consecutive ED patients; 2) incorporated variables from the history or physical examination, electrocardiogram and cardiac biomarkers; 3) did not incorporate cardiac stress testing or coronary angiography into prediction rule; 4) based on original research; 5) prospectively derived or validated; 6) did not require use of a computer; and 7) reported sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. We assessed study quality and extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form.

Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 7937 patients. None of the studies verified the prediction rule with a reference standard on all or a random sample of patients. Six studies did not report blinding prediction rule assessors to reference standard results, and vice versa. Three prediction rules were prospectively validated. Sensitivities and specificities ranged from 94% to 100% and 13% to 57%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.01 to 0.17, respectively.

Conclusion: Current prediction rules for ACS have substantial methodological limitations and have not been successfully implemented in the clinical setting. Future methodologically sound studies are needed to guide clinical practice.

Objectives: There is no set of prospectively validated criteria to identify the emergency department (ED) patients with renal colic who are most likely to eventually have to undergo an intervention. This study prospectively assessed predictors of intervention in this patient population.

Methods: This prospective cohort study included adult patients with renal colic who presented to 2 tertiary care hospital EDs. Patients had an 18-variable data form completed by an emergency physician and a radiological study to confirm urolithiasis. After discharge, patients were followed at 1 and 4 weeks to assess for intervention. The outcome criteria included the patient having had at least 1 of the following procedures performed: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrostomy or open surgery. Data were analyzed using appropriate univariate techniques, and those variables associated with intervention were combined using logistic regression analysis.

Results: Over an 8-month period, 245 patients with confirmed urolithiasis were followed; 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15%-25%) eventually had a procedure to remove their calculi. Three variables were significantly correlated with having a procedure: i) size of calculus ≥ 6 mm (odds ratio [OR] 10.7, 95% CI 4.6-24.8), ii) location of calculus above mid-ureter (OR 6.9, 95% CI 3.0-15.9), and iii) Visual Analogue Scale score for pain at discharge from the ED ≥ 2 cm (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.8). The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% C I 0.70-0.84) (p < 0.001). If all variables were present there was a 90% probability of the patient having an intervention performed within 4 weeks of discharge from the ED. Conversely, if none of the variables were present there was only a 4% probability of an intervention. Overall, the model had a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 89%-96%) and a specificity of 63% (95% CI 57%-69%).

Conclusions: This study has identified variables that could potentially be used to identify those renal colic patients who require an intervention after ED evaluation. Future studies will prospectively validate this model.

This paper is Part I of a 2-part series to describe the background and methodology for the Canadian C-Spine Rule study to develop a clinical decision rule for rational imaging in alert and stable trauma patients. Current use of radiography is inefficient and variable, in part because there has been a lack of evidence-based guidelines to assist emergency physicians. Clinical decision rules are research-based decision-making tools that incorporate 3 or more variables from the history, physical examination or simple tests. The Canadian CT Head and C-Spine (CCC) Study is a large collaborative effort to develop clinical decision rules for the use of CT head in minor head injury and for the use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable trauma victims. Part I details the background and rationale for the development of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Part II will describe in detail the objectives and methods of the Canadian C-Spine Rule study.