Browsing by Author "Fanaroff, Alexander C"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Randomized Trials Versus Common Sense and Clinical Observation: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
    (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020-08) Fanaroff, Alexander C; Califf, Robert M; Harrington, Robert A; Granger, Christopher B; McMurray, John JV; Patel, Manesh R; Bhatt, Deepak L; Windecker, Stephan; Hernandez, Adrian F; Gibson, C Michael; Alexander, John H; Lopes, Renato D
    Concerns about the external validity of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), together with the widespread availability of real-world data and advanced data analytic tools, have led to claims that common sense and clinical observation, rather than RCTs, should be the preferred method to generate evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, over the past 4 decades, results from well-done RCTs have repeatedly contradicted practices supported by common sense and clinical observation. Common sense and clinical observation fail for several reasons: incomplete understanding of pathophysiology, biases and unmeasured confounding in observational research, and failure to understand risks and benefits of treatments within complex systems. Concerns about traditional RCT models are legitimate, but randomization remains a critical tool to understand the causal relationship between treatments and outcomes. Instead, development and promulgation of tools to apply randomization to real-world data are needed to build the best evidence base in cardiovascular medicine.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Simplified Predictive Instrument to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndromes in a High-Risk Population.
    (J Am Heart Assoc, 2015-12-14) Fanaroff, Alexander C; Schulteis, Ryan D; Pieper, Karen S; Rao, Sunil V; Newby, L Kristin
    BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether diagnostic protocols based on cardiac markers to identify low-risk chest pain patients suitable for early release from the emergency department can be applied to patients older than 65 years or with traditional cardiac risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single-center retrospective study of 231 consecutive patients with high-risk factor burden in which a first cardiac troponin (cTn) level was measured in the emergency department and a second cTn sample was drawn 4 to 14 hours later, we compared the performance of a modified 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients with Chest Pain Using Contemporary Troponins as the Only Biomarker (ADAPT) rule to a new risk classification scheme that identifies patients as low risk if they have no known coronary artery disease, a nonischemic electrocardiogram, and 2 cTn levels below the assay's limit of detection. Demographic and outcome data were abstracted through chart review. The median age of our population was 64 years, and 75% had Thrombosis In Myocardial Infarction risk score ≥2. Using our risk classification rule, 53 (23%) patients were low risk with a negative predictive value for 30-day cardiac events of 98%. Applying a modified ADAPT rule to our cohort, 18 (8%) patients were identified as low risk with a negative predictive value of 100%. In a sensitivity analysis, the negative predictive value of our risk algorithm did not change when we relied only on undetectable baseline cTn and eliminated the second cTn assessment. CONCLUSIONS: If confirmed in prospective studies, this less-restrictive risk classification strategy could be used to safely identify chest pain patients with more traditional cardiac risk factors for early emergency department release.