Background The RATPAC trial showed that using a point-of-care panel of CK-MB(mass), myoglobin and troponin at baseline and 90 min increased the proportion of patients successfully discharged home, leading to reduced median length of initial hospital stay. However, it did not change mean hospital stay and may have increased mean costs per patient. The aim of this study was to explore variation in outcome and costs between participating hospitals.
Methods RATPAC was a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (N=2243) and economic analysis comparing diagnostic assessment using the panel to standard care for patients with acute chest pain due to suspected myocardial infarction at six hospitals. The difference in the proportion of patients successfully discharged (primary outcome) and mean costs per patient between the participating hospitals was compared.
Results Point-of-care assessment led to a higher proportion of successful discharges in four hospitals, a lower proportion in one and was equivocal in another. The OR (95% CI) for the primary outcome varied from 0.12 (0.01 to 1.03) to 11.07 (6.23 to 19.66) with significant heterogeneity between the centres (p<0.001). The mean cost per patient for the intervention group ranged from being £214.49 less than the control group (−132.56 to 657.10) to £646.57 more expensive (73.12 to 1612.71), with weak evidence of heterogeneity between the centres (p=0.0803).
Conclusion The effect of point-of-care panel assessment on successful discharge and costs per patient varied markedly between hospitals and may depend on local protocols, staff practices and available facilities.
- Myocardial infarction
- randomised trial
- cardiac markers
- cardiac care
- acute myocardial infract
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR HTA.
↵* The RATPAC Research Team, Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee are listed in appendix 1.
Funding National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme
Competing interest None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Leeds East REC.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.