The Impact of an Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol Using Conventional Troponin I for Patients With Cardiac Chest Pain in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study strove to assess the impact of the implementation of an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP), using shortened serial-testing intervals and a conventional troponin I (c-TnI) test, on emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS). Methods This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) presenting to a Canadian ED with a primary complaint of cardiac chest pain between January 14, 2017 and January 15, 2019. For non-high-risk patients, the troponin delta timing decreased from 6 hours to 3 hours, and a different conventional troponin I level cut-point was implemented on January 15, 2018. The primary outcome was ED LOS. Secondary outcomes included disposition status, consultation proportions, and major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. Results A total of 3133 patient interactions were included. Although the overall decrease in median ED LOS was not significant ( P = 0.074), a significant reduction occurred in ED LOS (-33 minutes; 95% confidence interval: -53.6 to -12.4 minutes) among patients who were discharged in the post-ADP group. Consultations were unchanged between groups (36.1% before vs 33.8% after; P = 0.17). The major adverse cardiac events outcomes were unchanged across cohorts (15.9% vs 15.3%; P = 0.62). Conclusions The implementation of an ADP, with a conventional troponin I test, for cardiac chest pain in a Canadian ED was not associated with a significant reduction of LOS for all patients; however, a significant reduction occurred for patients who were discharged, and the strategy appears safe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".