Computerized Medical History Taking for Acute Chest Pain (CLEOS-CPDS)

March 3, 2025 updated by: Thomas Kahan, Karolinska Institutet

Computerized, Patient-entered Medical Histories for Managing Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

The aim is to determine the additional value of computerized, patient-entered medical histories for the management of patients presenting at the emergency department with chest pain.

Study Overview

Status

Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to determine the value of a detailed medical history, acquired by computer-directed, patient self-entry of data, for efficient disposition of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain and non-diagnostic first ECG and/or serum markers for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The research questions posed are: will the added data and systems-based analysis of the data provided by computerization of these processes, as compared with routine physician-acquired histories and analysis; (1) safely risk stratify patients with chest pain, and (2) save time and resources?

Computerized, patient-entered histories will be collected with the software program CLEOS running on tablets (iPad®, Apple Inc, Cupertino, California, USA). The histories to be collected include demographic data, present illness, systems review, past medical history, prescription drugs, previous adverse drug reactions, social history, life-style risks, and family history. Histories will be collected during wait times in the ED, e.g., before patients are seen by a physician and while patients wait for reports of laboratory data collected by routine care.

Data acquired by CLEOS will be related to clinical outcomes in the acute setting and at 30 days and 1 year post-presentation for patients without documented ACS in the acute setting. Outcomes for all patients will be extracted from hospital records and national registries.

For the validation and future development of CLEOS, interviews with patients for the evaluation of patient experience regarding feasibility, acceptance, comprehensiveness and technical aspects of answering the CLEOS interview will take place within one to three months after the ED visit.

This is an exploratory study in which the calculation of the number of participating patients is based on the desired precision of sensitivity and specificity. Assuming that the prevalence is 0.5 (50 %), a power calculation with nQuery® version 7.0 (Statistical Solutions Ltd, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) shows that with 1000 patients the estimated precision of sensitivity and specificity is ±0.03 (3 %). The more the extreme the result, i.e. sensitivity or specificity approaching 0 or 1 (100 %), the higher the precision. The models will be developed in the first 50% of the data acquired (training data set) and validated in the last 50% of the data acquired (validation data set). We also intend to make estimates in subgroups. To ascertain that such estimates can be done, an even larger number of patients must be recruited. Thus, the study intends to recruit data from approximately 2000 patients.

Taken together, this study:

  1. will evaluate established clinical guidelines risk scores, as populated with CLEOS data, and compare these results with data obtained during the concurrent ED visit and made available in the standard hospital medical records;
  2. will assess how data collected with CLEOS in combination with established risk scores can rule-in and rule-out a diagnosis of an ACS, we will calculate sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive value;
  3. aim to develop new risk prediction scores for patients with chest pain, based on data collected with CLEOS; and
  4. will evaluate economic aspects of routine care, as compared with management by CLEOS by using standard health economy procedures and analyses to determine the resource utilization and cost differences between management according to guidelines, based on data collected with CLEOS, and current clinical practice.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

2000

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Stockholm, Sweden, 18288
        • Danderyd University Hospital Corp.

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Consecutive patients presenting at the emergency department with chest pain as presenting complaint.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Chest pain recorded by a triage nurse or registrar
  • Fluency in Swedish or English
  • Non-diagnostic first ECG and/or serum markers
  • Manchester triage 2-5
  • Informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to carry out computerized history-taking on the dedicated device

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Cohort
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
A correct diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome by use of computer-assisted patient entered history or standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance
Time Frame: 7 days
The primary objective is to determine whether the use of computer-assisted patient entered history is better than a standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance for the prediction and safe exclusion of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the acute setting in patients with non-diagnostic ECG and/or serum markers. Thus, the primary endpoint is the comparison between the two methods for the proportion of patients with a correct diagnosis of ACS or not ACS in the acute setting, The diagnosis of ACS or not ACS is defined as a validated clinical endpoint within 7 days
7 days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
A correct exclusion of an acute coronary syndrome up to 30 days by use of computer-assisted patient entered history or standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance
Time Frame: 30 days
To determine whether the use of computer-assisted patient entered history is better than a standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance to exclude an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the acute setting in patients with non-diagnostic ECG and/or serum markers. Thus, this secondary endpoint is the comparison between the two methods for the proportion of patients with a correct exclusion of ACS in the acute setting, The diagnosis of ACS is defined as a validated clinical endpoint within 30 days
30 days
A correct exclusion of an acute coronary syndrome up to 1 year by use of computer-assisted patient entered history or standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance
Time Frame: 1 year
To determine whether the use of computer-assisted patient entered history is better than a standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance to exclude an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the acute setting in patients with non-diagnostic ECG and/or serum markers. Thus, this secondary endpoint is the comparison between the two methods for the proportion of patients with a correct exclusion of ACS in the acute setting, The diagnosis of ACS is defined as a validated clinical endpoint within 1 year
1 year
Direct costs for a patient with a diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome when patient selection is based on computer-assisted patient entered history, as compared to standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance
Time Frame: 1 year
To measure direct costs for a patient with a diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome when patient selection is based on computer-assisted patient entered history, as compared to standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance. Costs will be obtained patient-by-patient from medical records
1 year
Patient experience with computer-assisted patient entered history measured as he proportion of patients who complete a computer-assisted patient entered history
Time Frame: 7 days
To evaluate the proportion of patients who complete a full computer-assisted patient entered history.
7 days
The ability of computer-assisted patient entered history, as compared to standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance to provide information required to calculate a TIMI risk score for an ACS.
Time Frame: 7 and 30 days
To compare the proportions of patients with computer-assisted patient entered history, as compared to standard history obtained by the cardiologist in attendance, where there is sufficient information documented to calculate the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score. The TIMI score contains the following information: Age, risk factors for coronary artery disease (family history, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, current smoker), a significant coronary artery stenosis, ST segment deviation on the ECG, 2 or more anginal attacks within 24 h, use of aspirin within 7 days, and elevated serum cardiac biomarkers.
7 and 30 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Thomas Kahan, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institutet
  • Study Director: Helge Brandberg, MD, Karolinska Institutet
  • Study Director: Sabine Koch, PhD, Karolinska Institutet
  • Study Director: Jonas Spaak, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institutet
  • Study Director: Carl Johan Sundberg, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institutet
  • Study Director: David Zakim, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institutet

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 1, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 31, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 7, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 13, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

February 20, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 3, 2025

Last Verified

March 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • KI-CLEOS-CPDS

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Chest Pain

Clinical Trials on CLEOS software program

Search Similar Trials