RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Interhospital variation in the RATPAC Trial (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) JF Emergency Medicine Journal JO Emerg Med J FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the British Association for Accident & Emergency Medicine SP 233 OP 238 DO 10.1136/emj.2010.108522 VO 29 IS 3 A1 Mike Bradburn A1 Steve W Goodacre A1 Patrick Fitzgerald A1 Tim Coats A1 Alasdair Gray A1 Taj Hassan A1 Julian Humphrey A1 Jason Kendall A1 Jason Smith A1 Paul Collinson A1 On behalf of the RATPAC Research Team YR 2012 UL http://emj.bmj.com/content/29/3/233.abstract AB 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.