Emergency Department Physician Attitudes, Practices, and Needs Assessment for the Management of Patients with Chest Pain Secondary to Anxiety and Panic

poster abstractBackground Chest pain is a common medical complaint, accounting for 7 million annual visits to US Emergency Departments (EDs) [1]. Most research and clinical resources are focused on the management of the life-threatening acute coronary syndrome (ACS); however, about 80% of all patients presenting to EDs with chest pain do not have a cardiopulmonary emergency [2-4]. Non-ACS chest pain can be caused by anxiety or a panic disorder, and such etiologies remain undiagnosed in almost 90% of cases, and frequently have worse outcomes [5-9]. Objective and Methods The study objective was to assess ED physician’s attitudes, practices, and needs in managing chest pain related to anxiety and panic. A REDCap survey of 15 Likert-style questions was constructed using expert consensus to ensure content validity then administered to all faculty and resident physicians in the IU Department of Emergency Medicine (113 individuals, 65.5% response-rate). Results ED providers believe a significant proportion (31.5%) of patients with chest pain at low risk for ACS are due to panic/anxiety. Providers give such patients instructions on how to manage their panic/anxiety only 34.8% of the time, while even fewer (19.0%) make a diagnosis of anxiety or panic disorder in their documentation. Most providers (77.0%) would welcome a narrative to aid in discussing anxiety/panic as a cause of chest pain and nearly all (85.1%) would find it helpful to have specific clinic information available to aid in follow-up. Conclusions A significant number of ED patients with chest pain are likely due to anxiety, and a majority of physicians report not having the resources necessary to manage these patients. Further work to develop relevant resources would aim to improve provider confidence in treating these patients, and would hope to improve management of anxiety or panic as a cause of chest pain in the ED

Emergency Department Cardiopulmonary Evaluation of Low-Risk Chest Pain Patients with Self-Reported Stress and Anxiety

Background Chest pain is a high-risk emergency department (ED) chief complaint; the majority of clinical resources are directed toward detecting and treating cardiopulmonary emergencies. However, at follow-up, 80%–95% of these patients have only a symptom-based diagnosis; a large number have undiagnosed anxiety disorders. Objective Our aim was to measure the frequency of self-identified stress or anxiety among chest pain patients, and compare their pretest probabilities, care processes, and outcomes. Methods Patients were divided into two groups: explicitly self-reported anxiety and stress or not at 90-day follow-up, then compared on several variables: ultralow (<2.5%) pretest probability, outcome rates for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and pulmonary embolism (PE), radiation exposure, total costs at 30 days, and 90-day recidivism. Results Eight hundred and forty-five patients were studied. Sixty-seven (8%) explicitly attributed their chest pain to “stress” or “anxiety”; their mean ACS pretest probability was 4% (95% confidence interval 2.9%–5.7%) and 49% (33/67) had ultralow pretest probability (0/33 with ACS or PE). None (0/67) were diagnosed with anxiety. Seven hundred and seventy-eight did not report stress or anxiety and, of these, 52% (403/778) had ultralow ACS pretest probability. Only one patient (0.2%; 1/403) was diagnosed with ACS and one patient (0.4%; 1/268) was diagnosed with PE. Patients with self-reported anxiety had similar radiation exposure, associated costs, and nearly identical (25.4% vs. 25.7%) ED recidivism to patients without reported anxiety. Conclusions Without prompting, 8% of patients self-identified “stress” or “anxiety” as the etiology for their chest pain. Most had low pretest probability, were over-investigated for ACS and PE, and not investigated for anxiety syndromes

Anxiety Associated With Increased Risk for Emergency Department Recidivism in Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain

Anxiety contributes to the chest pain symptom complex in 30% to 40% of patients with low-risk chest pain seen in the emergency department (ED). The validated Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) has been used as an anxiety screening tool in this population. The objective was to determine the prevalence of abnormal HADS-A scores in a cohort of low-risk chest pain patients and test the association of HADS-A score with subsequent healthcare utilization and symptom recurrence. In a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study of adult ED subjects with low-risk chest pain, the HADS-A was used to stratify participants into 2 groups: low anxiety (score <8) and high anxiety (score ≥8). At 45-day follow-up, chest pain recurrence was assessed by patient report, whereas ED utilization was assessed through chart review. Of the 167 subjects enrolled, 78 (47%) were stratified to high anxiety. The relative risk for high anxiety being associated with at least one 30-day ED return visit was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.7) and this relative risk increased to 9.1 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 38.6) for 2 or more ED return visits. Occasional chest pain recurrence was reported by more subjects in the high anxiety group, 68% vs 47% (p = 0.029). In conclusion, 47% of low-risk chest pain cohort had abnormal levels of anxiety. These patients were more likely to have occasional recurrence of their chest pain and had an increased risk multiple ED return visits

Characteristics of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Who Do Not Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Prehospital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activation

Objectives: To assess the clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that are associated with an increased likelihood of not undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after prehospital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory activation in a regional STEMI system. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prehospital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory activations in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, between May 2008 and March 2011. Data were extracted from the prehospital patient record, the prehospital electrocardiogram, and the regional STEMI database. The independent variables of interest included objective patient characteristics as well as documented cardiac history and risk factors. Analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: Two hundred thirty-one prehospital activations were included in the analysis. Five independent variables were found to be associated with an increased likelihood of not undergoing PCI: increasing age, bundle branch block, elevated heart rate, left ventricular hypertrophy, and non-white race. The variables with the most significance were any type of bundle branch block [adjusted odds ratios (AOR), 5.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91–16.76], left ventricular hypertrophy (AOR, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.03–10.53), and non-white race (AOR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.76–7.08). Conversely, the only variable associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing PCI was the presence of arm pain (AOR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.36–6.25). Conclusions: Several of the above variables are expected electrocardiogram mimics; however, the decreased rate of PCI in non-white patients highlights an area for investigation and process improvement. This may guide the development of prehospital STEMI protocols, although avoiding false positive and inappropriate activations

Characterizing the role of haloperidol for analgesia in the Emergency Department

The purpose of this study was to characterize emergency department (ED) physicians' beliefs and current practices regarding the use of haloperidol for the management of acute and acute on chronic pain. METHODS: A survey regarding haloperidol use was distributed by email to attending physicians, resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at emergency medicine departments in the Indiana University Health System and at St Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor. RESULTS: Of the 129 responses received, the majority (89.1%) of providers had used haloperidol for control of pain in the ED. The most common reason that respondents used haloperidol to treat pain was that they did not want to use an opioid or other agent (91.3%). The majority of providers (73.9%) believed that haloperidol was effective because there is a psychiatric component to pain, while over half of respondents (58.3%) chose haloperidol as they believed it to have analgesic properties. When haloperidol was used as a first line medication, providers felt that it was effective in controlling pain about 69.0% of the time without the need for further medication. The most common presentations for use were for unspecified abdominal pain, headache, and gastroparesis. CONCLUSION: ED providers reported using haloperidol most often as a second line treatment to manage both acute and acute on chronic pain. When haloperidol was used as a first line agent, providers claimed that additional medicines were not usually required. Haloperidol may provide an effective alternative to opioids in treatment of acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain in the ED

Stressing Out About the Heart: A Narrative Review of the Role of Psychological Stress in Acute Cardiovascular Events

Objectives: Survivors of acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stroke, may experience significant psychological distress during and following the acute event. Long-term adverse effects may follow, including the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased overall all-cause mortality, and recurrent cardiac events. The goal of this concepts paper is to describe and summarize the rates of adverse psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, following cardiovascular emergencies, to review how these psychological factors are associated with increased risk of future events and long-term health and to provide a theoretical framework for future work. Methods: A panel of two board-certified emergency physicians, one with a doctorate in experimental psychology, along with one PhD clinical psychologist with expertise in psychoneuroendocrinology were co-authors involved in the paper. Each author used various search strategies (e.g., PubMed, Psycinfo, Cochrane, and Google Scholar) for primary research and reviewed articles related to their section. The references were reviewed and evaluated for relevancy and included based on review by the lead authors RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 24 studies (N > 2,300) found the prevalence of ACS-induced PTSD at nearly 12%, while a meta-analysis of nine studies (N = 1,138) found that 25% of survivors of transient ischemic attack and stroke report PTSD symptoms. The presence of PTSD doubles 3-year risk of CVD/mortality risk in ACS survivors. Cardiac patients treated during periods of ED overcrowding, hallway care, and perceived poor clinician-patient communication appear at greater risk for subsequent PTSD. Conclusions: Psychological stress is often present in patients undergoing evaluation for acute CVD events. Understanding such associations provides a foundation to appreciate the potential contribution of psychological variables on acute and long-term cardiovascular recovery, while also stimulating future areas of research and discovery

Prospective study of emergency medicine provider wellness across ten academic and community hospitals during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background While COVID-19 has had far-reaching consequences on society and health care providers, there is a paucity of research exploring frontline emergency medicine (EM) provider wellness over the course of a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the well-being, resilience, burnout, and wellness factors and needs of EM physicians and advanced practice providers (e.g., nurse practitioners and physician assistants; APPs) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A descriptive, prospective, cohort survey study of EM physicians and APPs was performed across ten emergency departments in a single state, including academic and community settings. Participants were recruited via email to complete four weekly, voluntary, anonymous questionnaires comprised of customized and validated tools for assessing wellness (Well Being Index), burnout (Physician Work Life Study item), and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale) during the initial acceleration phase of COVID-19. Univariate and multivariate analysis with Chi-squared, Fisher’s Exact, and logistic regression was performed. Results Of 213 eligible participants, response rates ranged from 31 to 53% over four weeks. Women comprised 54 to 60% of responses. Nonrespondent characteristics were similar to respondents. Concern for personal safety decreased from 85 to 61% (p  50% of respondents initially without significant change (p = 0.05 and p = 0.30 respectively). Women were nearly twice as likely to report feelings of isolation as men (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.82–5.88). Working part-time carried twice the risk of burnout (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.10–5.47). Baseline resilience was normal to high. Provider well-being improved over the four weeks (30 to 14%; p = 0.01), but burnout did not significantly change (30 to 22%; p = 0.39). Conclusion This survey of frontline EM providers, including physicians and APPs, during the initial surge of COVID-19 found that despite being a resilient group, the majority experienced stress, anxiety, fear, and concerns about personal safety due to COVID-19, putting many at risk for burnout. The sustained impact of the pandemic on EM provider wellness deserves further investigation to guide targeted interventions

Longitudinal Prospective Study of Emergency Medicine Provider Wellness Across Ten Academic and Community Hospitals During the Initial Surge of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: While the coronavirus (COVID-19) has had far-reaching consequences on society and health care providers, there is a paucity of research exploring emergency medicine (EM) provider wellness over the course of a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the well-being, resilience, burnout, and wellness factors and needs of EM physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A longitudinal, descriptive, prospective cohort survey study of 213 EM physicians and APPs was performed across ten emergency departments in a single state, including academic and community settings. Participants were recruited via email to complete four weekly, voluntary, anonymous questionnaires comprised of customized and validated tools for assessing wellness (Well Being Index), burnout (Physician Work Life Study item), and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale) during the initial acceleration phase of COVID-19. Univariate and multivariate analysis with Chi-squared, Fisher’s Exact, and logistic regression was performed. Results: Of 213 eligible participants, response rates ranged from 31 to 53% over four weeks. Women comprised 54 to 60% of responses. Nonrespondent characteristics were similar to respondents. Concern for personal safety decreased from 85% to 61% (p50% of respondents initially without significant change (p=0.05 and p=0.30 respectively). Women were nearly twice as likely to report feelings of isolation as men (OR 1.95; 95%CI 1.82-5.88). Working part-time carried twice the risk of burnout (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.10-5.47). Baseline resilience was normal to high. Provider well-being improved over the four-weeks (30% to 14%; p=0.01), but burnout did not significantly change (30% to 22%; p=0.39). Conclusion: This survey of frontline EM providers during the initial surge of COVID-19 found that despite being a resilient group, the majority experienced stress, anxiety, fear, and concerns about personal safety due to COVID-19, with many at risk for burnout. The sustained impact of the pandemic on EM provider wellness deserves further investigation to guide targeted interventions.This publication was made possible, in part, through JW funding support from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute funded, in part by Award Number UL1TR002529 from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health

Can we predict which COVID-19 patients will need transfer to intensive care within 24 hours of floor admission?

Background Patients with COVID‐19 can present to the emergency department (ED) at any point during the spectrum of illness, making it difficult to predict what level of care the patient will ultimately require. Admission to a ward bed, which is subsequently upgraded within hours to an intensive care unit (ICU) bed, represents an inability to appropriately predict the patient's course of illness. Predicting which patients will require ICU care within 24 hours would allow admissions to be managed more appropriately. Methods This was a retrospective study of adults admitted to a large health care system, including 14 hospitals across the state of Indiana. Included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, were admitted to the hospital from the ED, and had a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for COVID‐19. Patients directly admitted to the ICU or in whom the PCR test was obtained > 3 days after hospital admission were excluded. Extracted data points included demographics, comorbidities, ED vital signs, laboratory values, chest imaging results, and level of care on admission. The primary outcome was a combination of either death or transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission to the hospital. Data analysis was performed by logistic regression modeling to determine a multivariable model of variables that could predict the primary outcome. Results Of the 542 included patients, 46 (10%) required transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission. The final composite model, adjusted for age and admission location, included history of heart failure and initial oxygen saturation of 6.4 or glomerular filtration rate < 46. The odds ratio (OR) for decompensation within 24 hours was 5.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17 to 12.31) when all criteria were present. For patients without the above criteria, the OR for ICU transfer was 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09 to 0.45). Conclusions Although our model did not perform well enough to stand alone as a decision guide, it highlights certain clinical features that are associated with increased risk of decompensation