Chest Pain Hospitalizations — How Emergency Clinician Tendencies Impact Care, Outcomes, and Costs
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
The practice of hospitalizing emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain after ruling out acute myocardial infarction (AMI) varies widely. The long-term outcome and cost implications of this variation are uncertain.
Methods
Analyzing 2007–2021 claims from a national commercial insurer, we identified 223,569 adults (≥18 years) ED visits with a principal diagnosis of chest pain without major secondary cardiopulmonary diagnoses, seen by 19,001 clinicians in 2,273 EDs. Within each ED, clinicians with the highest and lowest terciles of risk-adjusted hospitalization rates were classified as high-versus low-admitting. Primary outcomes were 30-and 180-day subsequent AMI hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes included 7-day cardiac testing, 30-day coronary intervention, and 30-day total and out-of-pocket costs. We estimated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and relative cost differences using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for patient and visit characteristics.
Results
Patients had a mean age of 48.6 years, and 53.9% were female; measured characteristics were similar between groups. Compared with low-admitting clinicians, visits to high-admitting clinicians had higher 7-day cardiac testing (13.1% vs 10.8%; aRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.17–1.27) and 30-day coronary interventions (4.3% vs 3.8%; aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09–1.23). AMI hospitalization did not differ at 30 days (0.60% vs 0.60%; aRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84–1.15) or 180 days (0.85% vs 0.87%; aRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.10). Thirty-day total costs were higher after visits to high-admitting clinicians (relative change 11.3%, 95% CI 8.8–13.8), and out-of-pocket costs ≥$1,000 were more common (32.0% vs 29.6%; relative change 8.2%, 95% CI 6.1–10.3).
Conclusions
Higher clinician hospitalizing tendency for ED chest pain is associated with greater downstream testing, more coronary interventions, and higher costs without lower short-or intermediate-term AMI risk. Reducing marginal admissions among high-admitting clinicians may decrease spending and practice variation with minimal impact on AMI outcomes.
