The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using a point-of-care cardiac marker panel in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected but not proven acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design: Multicentre pragmatic open randomised controlled tr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
NIHR Journals Library
2011-05-01
|
| Series: | Health Technology Assessment |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15230 |
| _version_ | 1817992751181987840 |
|---|---|
| author | S Goodacre M Bradburn P Fitzgerald E Cross P Collinson A Gray AS Hall |
| author_facet | S Goodacre M Bradburn P Fitzgerald E Cross P Collinson A Gray AS Hall |
| author_sort | S Goodacre |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using a point-of-care cardiac marker panel in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected but not proven acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design: Multicentre pragmatic open randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Setting: Six acute hospital EDs in the UK. Participants: Adults presenting to hospital with chest pain due to suspected but not proven myocardial infarction, and no other potentially serious alternative pathology or comorbidity. Interventions: Participants were allocated using an online randomisation system to receive either (1) diagnostic assessment using the point-of-care biochemical marker panel or (2) conventional diagnostic assessment without the panel. All tests and treatments other than the panel were provided at the discretion of the clinician. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully discharged home after ED assessment, defined as patients who had (1) either left the hospital or were awaiting transport home with a discharge decision having been made at 4 hours after initial presentation and (2) suffered no major adverse event (as defined below) during the following 3 months. Secondary outcomes included length of initial hospital stay and total inpatient days over 3 months, and major adverse events (death, non-fatal AMI, life-threatening arrhythmia, emergency revascularisation or hospitalisation for myocardial ischaemia). Economic analysis estimated mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and then estimated the probability of cost-effectiveness assuming willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results: We randomised 1132 participants to point of care and 1131 to standard care, and analysed 1125 and 1118, respectively [mean age 54.5 years, 1307/2243 (58%) male and 269/2243 (12%) with known coronary heart disease (CHD)]. In the point-of-care group 358/1125 (32%) were successfully discharged compared with 146/1118 (13%) in the standard-care group [odds ratio (OR) adjusted for age, gender and history of CHD 3.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 4.82, p < 0.001]. Mean length of the initial hospital stay was 29.6 hours versus 31.8 hours (mean difference = 2.1 hours; 95% CI –3.7 to 8.0 hours, p = 0.462), while median length of initial hospital stay was 8.8 hours versus 14.2 hours (p < 0.001). More patients in the point-of-care group had no inpatient days recorded during follow-up (54% vs 40%, p < 0.001), but mean inpatient days did not differ between the two groups (1.8 vs 1.7, p = 0.815). More patients in the point-of-care group were managed on coronary care [50/1125 (4%) vs 31/1118 (3%), p = 0.041]. There were 36 (3%) patients with major adverse events in the point-of-care group and 26 (2%) in the standard-care group (adjusted OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78 to 2.20, p = 0.313). Mean costs per patient were £1217 with point-of-care versus £1006 with standard care (p = 0.056), while mean QALYs were 0.158 versus 0.161 (p = 0.250). The probability of standard care being dominant (i.e. cheaper and more effective) was 0.888. Conclusions: Point-of-care testing increases the proportion of patients successfully discharged home and reduces the median (but not mean) length of hospital stay. It is more expensive than standard care and unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37823923. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 15, No. 23. See the HTA programme website for further project information. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T01:30:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-caf60e26840a4755a5f3d7fb2ed98569 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1366-5278 2046-4924 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T01:30:25Z |
| publishDate | 2011-05-01 |
| publisher | NIHR Journals Library |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Technology Assessment |
| spelling | doaj.art-caf60e26840a4755a5f3d7fb2ed985692022-12-22T02:20:13ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242011-05-01152310.3310/hta1523006/302/19The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency departmentS Goodacre0M Bradburn1P Fitzgerald2E Cross3P Collinson4A Gray5AS Hall6School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSt George’s Hospital, London, UKRoyal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Lothian Health Board, Edinburgh, UKLeeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UKObjectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using a point-of-care cardiac marker panel in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected but not proven acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design: Multicentre pragmatic open randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Setting: Six acute hospital EDs in the UK. Participants: Adults presenting to hospital with chest pain due to suspected but not proven myocardial infarction, and no other potentially serious alternative pathology or comorbidity. Interventions: Participants were allocated using an online randomisation system to receive either (1) diagnostic assessment using the point-of-care biochemical marker panel or (2) conventional diagnostic assessment without the panel. All tests and treatments other than the panel were provided at the discretion of the clinician. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully discharged home after ED assessment, defined as patients who had (1) either left the hospital or were awaiting transport home with a discharge decision having been made at 4 hours after initial presentation and (2) suffered no major adverse event (as defined below) during the following 3 months. Secondary outcomes included length of initial hospital stay and total inpatient days over 3 months, and major adverse events (death, non-fatal AMI, life-threatening arrhythmia, emergency revascularisation or hospitalisation for myocardial ischaemia). Economic analysis estimated mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and then estimated the probability of cost-effectiveness assuming willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results: We randomised 1132 participants to point of care and 1131 to standard care, and analysed 1125 and 1118, respectively [mean age 54.5 years, 1307/2243 (58%) male and 269/2243 (12%) with known coronary heart disease (CHD)]. In the point-of-care group 358/1125 (32%) were successfully discharged compared with 146/1118 (13%) in the standard-care group [odds ratio (OR) adjusted for age, gender and history of CHD 3.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 4.82, p < 0.001]. Mean length of the initial hospital stay was 29.6 hours versus 31.8 hours (mean difference = 2.1 hours; 95% CI –3.7 to 8.0 hours, p = 0.462), while median length of initial hospital stay was 8.8 hours versus 14.2 hours (p < 0.001). More patients in the point-of-care group had no inpatient days recorded during follow-up (54% vs 40%, p < 0.001), but mean inpatient days did not differ between the two groups (1.8 vs 1.7, p = 0.815). More patients in the point-of-care group were managed on coronary care [50/1125 (4%) vs 31/1118 (3%), p = 0.041]. There were 36 (3%) patients with major adverse events in the point-of-care group and 26 (2%) in the standard-care group (adjusted OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.78 to 2.20, p = 0.313). Mean costs per patient were £1217 with point-of-care versus £1006 with standard care (p = 0.056), while mean QALYs were 0.158 versus 0.161 (p = 0.250). The probability of standard care being dominant (i.e. cheaper and more effective) was 0.888. Conclusions: Point-of-care testing increases the proportion of patients successfully discharged home and reduces the median (but not mean) length of hospital stay. It is more expensive than standard care and unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37823923. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 15, No. 23. See the HTA programme website for further project information.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15230point of carecardiac markermyocardial infarctionstandard careemergency department |
| spellingShingle | S Goodacre M Bradburn P Fitzgerald E Cross P Collinson A Gray AS Hall The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department Health Technology Assessment point of care cardiac marker myocardial infarction standard care emergency department |
| title | The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| title_full | The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| title_fullStr | The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| title_full_unstemmed | The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| title_short | The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| title_sort | ratpac randomised assessment of treatment using panel assay of cardiac markers trial a randomised controlled trial of point of care cardiac markers in the emergency department |
| topic | point of care cardiac marker myocardial infarction standard care emergency department |
| url | https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15230 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sgoodacre theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT mbradburn theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT pfitzgerald theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT ecross theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT pcollinson theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT agray theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT ashall theratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT sgoodacre ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT mbradburn ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT pfitzgerald ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT ecross ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT pcollinson ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT agray ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment AT ashall ratpacrandomisedassessmentoftreatmentusingpanelassayofcardiacmarkerstrialarandomisedcontrolledtrialofpointofcarecardiacmarkersintheemergencydepartment |