Risk stratification on 206 patients with acute coronary syndrome at Rome Policlinico Umberto I Emergency Department

Objectives. The objective of this study on patients with suspected Acute Coronary Disease (ACS) was to verify with the risk stratification any differences between patients in which the AHA/ACC guidelines were not systematically applied and the same patients in which, retrospectively, the AHA/ACC guidelines were adhered to. Materials and Methods. Retrospective examination was carried out in our Emergency Department at Rome Policlinico Umberto I on 206 patients (age range 21-88, median age 56.6 +/- 18.9 years) (54.3% males) with symptoms compatible with ACS. All the patients underwent "triage" using code green or code yellow and were sub-divided into 7 subgroups based on degree of risk for death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, (labelled A to G, with A representing highest risk and G the least at-risk) in accordance with the ACC/AHA guidelines. Each patient was then examined for: final outcome, admittance and discharge from hospital, refusal of admittance, death. Results. Of the 206 patients, 48 were judged improperly (23.3%) Of these, 13 were assigned code green rather than code yellow and 11 were assigned code yellow instead of code green. By risk stratification in accordance with the AHA/ACC guidelines, 128 patients (62.1%) belonging to subgroups A,B,C and D should have required hospitalization. Seventy eight patients belonging to subgroups E,F and G should have been sent for observation at the Chest Pain Unit ( CPU), 54 from this group would have been potentially discharged after 6-12 hours of negative clinical observation. Actually, hospitalization was requested for 132 patients (64%) of whom 78 accepted, 50 declined and 4 were deceased before admission; 74 patients (35.9%) were discharged after brief observation. Risk stratification for 30 day mortality or non fatal MI emphasizes that 8 of the patients hospitalized should have been treated at the CPU (unwarranted hospitalization). Twenty four of the 50 patients who declined hospitalization should have benefited by brief observation at the Chest pain Unit. Twenty eight of the 78 patients examined in the Emergency Department and later discharged should have been hospitalized (wrong discharge). Conclusions. This study, even if limited by time restriction, provides enough evidence in support of the effectiveness of the ACC/AHA guidelines to determine subgroups and to correctly determine groups according to level of risk, thus limiting unwarranted hospitalizations and wrong discharges. Clin Ter 2009; 160(5):351-357